On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > * add text to the PSD draft making it clear that what it's describing is > an experiment whose outcome will be taken only as feedback to the revision > of the standard (i.e., this is not intended to be the final form of > anything), and it is not intended to be deployed outside of the > experiment's participants; > > Forgive me, but while everyone involved in this has extensive experience > and is trying to solve a real and serious issue, this is an astonishingly > naive view. > I don't think it's based entirely on naivety. I think there's a healthy dose of feeling that the experiment as it's currently designed couldn't possibly scale to "the entire domain namespace" and/or "all servers on the Internet", so in that sense from where I sit there's a built in safeguard against this becoming a permanent wart. Rather, it's primed as a possibly useful data collection exercise. Comparing it to the "obs" grammars of days of yore, the PSD proposal is much too expensive to become engrained as-is, whereas the old grammars were relatively easy to carry forward. > Perhaps there are exampls of IETF experiments that have permitted entirely > starting over, but mostly those only happen when there is a complete > failure, and those typically are called experiments. > ATPS (RFC 6541) was Experimental, and it flatly failed. For a more visible example, Sender ID was Experimental, and I would argue it did too. Should they not have been? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
