On Fri, Jul 12, 2019, at 2:27 PM, 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 think so. "[I]n removing constraints" would flow a little better, but yeah. Thanks, Stan > > 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
