On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 6:52 AM Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I suggest adding it to this paragraph: > > This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC and PSL > algorithm cited above, in an attempt to mitigate this abuse. > update to DMARC = yes; update to PSL = no > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 1:44 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 5:01 PM Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Since this is an experiment, Appendix A discusses the updates that >>> happen. we don't actually say explicitly "if the experiment is a success, >>> the following changes will be made" and perhaps I should add some wording >>> like that. >>> >> >> Something like this, perhaps? >> >> "A standards track update to [RFC7489] will take into account the results >> of this experiment." >> >> ... somewhere in Section 1. >> > A normative dependency from an experimental spec imposed upon a standards track spec seems like a bad idea to me. At the very least it would impose a timing constraint that DMARCbis could not be "completed" until after the PSD experiment is "completed", analyzed and consensus achieved. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
