I'm good with either of Scott's wordings on this. I guess I'm making an assumption that the TLD operators know what they can and can't do (but that may be a horrible assumption).
Tim (no hats) On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 6:13 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > 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 > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
