On Fri 12/Jul/2019 20:27:05 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, July 12, 2019 1:59:55 PM EDT Stan Kalisch wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 5:21:14 PM EDT Seth Blank wrote:
>>>> As Secretary, there are three items that have not yet reached consensus
>>>> that must be resolved during WGLC:
>>>>
>>>> 2. If explicit call outs to ICANN/limited operator capacity to implement
>>>> are needed
>>>
>>> There has been feedback in favor of adding this and none against so far.
>>>
>>> The specific proposal is:
>>>
>>> "Please note that today's operational and policy reality prevents this
>>> experiment from being deployed globally. If the experiment shows that PSD
>>> solves a real problem at a large scale, the results could prove to be
>>> useful in the development of policies outside of the IETF that would
>>> permit its ubiquitous deployment."
>>>
>>> Because RFCs are (approximately) forever, I'm concerned about words like
>>> "today's" in protocol documents, even experimental ones.
>>>
>>> How about this instead:
>>>
>>> "As of the writing of this document operational and policy constraints
>>> prevent this experiment from being deployed globally. If the experiment
>>> shows that PSD solves a real problem and can be used at a large scale,
>>> the results could prove to be useful in the development of policies
>>> outside of the IETF that would permit broader deployment".
>>
>> "[D]evelopment of policies outside of the IETF" strikes me as a little odd
>> since IETF isn't setting policy *per se*, although substitute language that
>> is just as succinct is escaping me at the moment.
>
> .... removal of constraints ... ???
>
> "As of the writing of this document operational and policy constraints
> prevent
> this experiment from being deployed globally. If the experiment shows that
> PSD
> solves a real problem and can be used at a large scale, the results could
> prove to be useful in the removal of constraints outside of the IETF that
> would permit broader deployment".
>
> Better?
I reply here to the other thread,[*] where you said "Some can, some can't."
For the sake of comprehensibility, could that be spelled out a little bit more
clearly? For example like so:
As of the writing of this document, there are operational
and policy constraints which prevent this experiment from
being deployed globally. While it is beyond the scope of
this document to delve into the details, be it enough to
mention that not all PSOs are actually able to publish
DMARC records as needed. Those who are able to do so and
wish to participate in the experiment should contact
DMARC-PSD.org in order to have their PSD enlisted. If the
experiment shows that DMARC-PSD solves a real problem and
can be used at a large scale, the results could prove to
be useful in removing those constraints, so as to permit
broader deployment.
Best
Ale
--
[*] Archived-At:
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/_WjDZj17qySDLcIWlcCIan54s0A>
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
