Scott--I agree whole-heartedly. One has to wonder if delaying or impeding advancement of this I-D, because of an external dependency that appears unlikely to be resolved in a timely fashion, is making the perfect the enemy of the good. This group has much accomplish in a time frame quite possibly measured in years and that work can and should be done in parallel to competing IETF equities. The stated risk, as I understand it, appears small as it is constrained by the experiment and resolvable in future drafts (and implementations).
-Andrew On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:49 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 12:39:09 PM EST Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > I support publishing the I-D as confirmed in the WGLC with (perhaps) some > > additional caveats regarding the ephemerality of the Experiment as deemed > > necessary by the chairs. > > > > Given the expected duration of the experiment (at least a year to collect > > some useful data, if not 2-3 years), I also support unblocking the other > > work in this WG since we ought not wait for this experiment to "conclude" > > (whatever that means) before proceeding on other work items. > > I don't see any reason the other WG items can't proceed in parallel with > the > experiment. I believe the changes to DMARC to bring it to IETF standards, > particularly the need for an alternative to the PSL, will take significant > effort to achieve. As a result, I think there's little risk that results > from > the experiment will end up being a critical path item for any WG effort. > > 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
