+1 Your proposed rewording makes sense. Michael Hammer
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 1:41 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> 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". > > Also, since this is about ephemera and not protocol, I think it should go > in > Appendix A. > > Comments? > > Scott K > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
