On Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:30:59 AM EST Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:02 AM Craig Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote: > > First, while I know you've said the needs of external actors won't weigh > > on your decision about moving forward, I would like to mention that > > having a stable reference for PSD DMARC will help us with working towards > > policy changes that would allow us to participate in this experiment. It > > may not be important to the WG Chairs' decision on the draft, but there > > are stakeholders for whom it is important. > > Just to be clear, I don't mean to suggest the restriction you're referring > to is invalid. I'm sympathetic to the idea that some potential > participants in PSD are constrained by policies outside of their control or > ours. But I look at it this way: A series of "X can't happen until Y > happens" assertions have been made over the last while, and the series is > roughly circular. I don't mean to be insensitive to the pain of you or > others under external constraints, yet at the same time, from the > perspective of the IETF, those constraints are very much external and thus > are easier to disqualify as we try (sometimes desperately) to find a way > out of this deadlock we're in. > > I will also be somewhat ashamed to hand Alexey a deadlocked working group > in March. :-) > > With my chair hat on, I'm leaning toward making the following consensus > evaluation: With a completed (and now seven month old) Working Group Last > Call on the PSD document, and as far as I can see no sustained objection, > we should proceed toward publication. Unless someone wants to argue that > this is not the WG's consensus, we'll proceed at the end of next week. > > To be specific: > > Dave raised a post-WGLC concern that DMARC and its use of the PSL really > ought to be teased apart. I have heard no objection to that, and in fact > have seen some support for it, so I consider that also to have consensus. > The part that does not appear to have consensus is that it is mandatory for > this to be done before the PSD work can proceed. > > Dave also suggested that Experimental status is not procedurally > appropriate for this work, and stated some reasons. There appear to be no > others lending support for this assertion either. However, while I > disagree, and I believe I gave an existence proof to the contrary, I will > put this question to the working group: Can we solve this problem by > switching the document to Informational status, and can the working group > accept that outcome? That seems an easy compromise, and I saw it proposed > but not fully discussed yet. This seems quite reasonable as well when one > considers that PSD's proponents could very likely get the thing published > as an RFC via the Independent Stream if they continue to find no progress > here. So, please discuss this option on the list and I'll measure > consensus on it at the end of next week as well when next steps are chosen. > > Mike objected to PSD generally, also long after WGLC completed. This too > does not appear to have swayed consensus. (And he's been cogitating on > that thread for a few weeks now...) > > As a reminder, we still need to do AD evaluation, an IETF-wide last call, > directorate reviews, and IESG evaluation before it lands in the RFC > editor's queue.
As editor, I'm happy to update the draft to match whatever the chairs find as consensus. Personally, I think informational is fine. I'll wait for direction from the chairs before doing anything. Scott K Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
