On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:25 PM Dotzero <[email protected]> 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. >
I want to say again that I make no assertion that any of Dave's claims are invalid. The main thing I want us to discuss is whether any of them rise to the level of halting PSD's movement through the process versus finding a way to do all of it in parallel, accepting the risks being identified. Fixing everything first will be extremely time-consuming, but it is a possible course of action. 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. > Yes, that is the question. And the working group can still legitimately conclude that it wants to advance this document before conducting that experiment. As you said, rough consensus. I would remind everyone, however, that this document still needs to pass a two week IETF-wide Last Call, appropriate directorate reviews, and IESG review before it can be sent to the RFC editor queue, where again it will wait for a while. Assuming we have consensus to proceed in spite of what Dave and now Mike are saying, we're still at least a month or two from publication. That seems a long time to wait before starting the experiment and collecting data. Are we sure we want to serialize everything this way? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
