On 2/4/2020 10:13 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:20:14 PM EST Dave Crocker wrote:
I don't recall that scaling limitation was an embedded and acknowledged
fact about that spec. And with a quick scan I don't see anything about
that in the document.
There is a difference between having some folk be critical of an
experiment, versus have its non-scalability be an admitted limit to its
future. That is, you or I or whoever might know a spec sucks and can't
succeed, but that's different from having the formal process declare
that an experiment is /intended/ not to scale, which seems to be the
case here.
This claim seems to me to be unrelated to anything in the draft. Would you
please point to where you found this?
Murray's 12/3 email:
"I don't think it's based entirely on naivety. I think there's a
healthy dose of feeling that the experiment as it's currently designed
couldn't possibly scale to "the entire domain namespace" and/or "all
servers on the Internet", so in that sense from where I sit there's a
built in safeguard against this becoming a permanent wart."
Why would the expectations for Experimental be higher than for
Informational? LMTP is Informational, and it certainly needs to succeed.
As a rule -- or certainly a solid pattern -- Experimental means that the
document wants to be standards track or BCP but needs some vetting
before being permitted that honor. Informational docs don't have an
expectation of making it to standards track.
Would you withdraw your objections if we made this informational?
It would eliminate my concerns about this being Experimental, of
course. With an equal 'of course', it would not affect the technical
concerns.
Help me understand.
I'll try with the other note I'm considering. However my intent for that
note is as a summary, not as offering some new material.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
