On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:44 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:25:06 PM EST Dotzero wrote: > > I am not against experiments, but having reread the entire thread > starting > > from Dave's post in August, I believe his concerns are valid. My question > > to the chairs and the group as a whole is whether an experiment can be > > constructed that is valid and useful without "comingling" PSD issues and > > concerns with the core of DMARC at scale? That is, the group that is > > seriously interested does their experiment amongst themselves to produce > > data that supports and justifies such changes in the wild. > > I think the draft as written works as you suggest. I think Dave's > concerns > are really about DMARC (or at least 99.6% about DMARC) and not > significantly > related to this addition. As designed, the experiment is self-contained: > > And those are my concerns as well. I would rather see DMARCbis go forward > For senders, it only affects PSDs that have been listed as participants. > > For receivers, it only affects receivers that choose to deploy code to do > the > additional check related to PSD DMARC. > > As far as I can determine, there is zero impact on anyone else. > > We have running code. I'll leave it to the chairs to evaluate the > consensus. > > Scott K > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
