On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:02 AM Craig Schwartz <cr...@ftld.com> wrote:
> First, while I know you've said the needs of external actors won't weigh > on your decision about moving forward, I would like to mention that > having a stable reference for PSD DMARC will help us with working towards > policy changes that would allow us to participate in this experiment. It > may not be important to the WG Chairs' decision on the draft, but there > are stakeholders for whom it is important. > Just to be clear, I don't mean to suggest the restriction you're referring to is invalid. I'm sympathetic to the idea that some potential participants in PSD are constrained by policies outside of their control or ours. But I look at it this way: A series of "X can't happen until Y happens" assertions have been made over the last while, and the series is roughly circular. I don't mean to be insensitive to the pain of you or others under external constraints, yet at the same time, from the perspective of the IETF, those constraints are very much external and thus are easier to disqualify as we try (sometimes desperately) to find a way out of this deadlock we're in. I will also be somewhat ashamed to hand Alexey a deadlocked working group in March. :-) With my chair hat on, I'm leaning toward making the following consensus evaluation: With a completed (and now seven month old) Working Group Last Call on the PSD document, and as far as I can see no sustained objection, we should proceed toward publication. Unless someone wants to argue that this is not the WG's consensus, we'll proceed at the end of next week. To be specific: Dave raised a post-WGLC concern that DMARC and its use of the PSL really ought to be teased apart. I have heard no objection to that, and in fact have seen some support for it, so I consider that also to have consensus. The part that does not appear to have consensus is that it is mandatory for this to be done before the PSD work can proceed. Dave also suggested that Experimental status is not procedurally appropriate for this work, and stated some reasons. There appear to be no others lending support for this assertion either. However, while I disagree, and I believe I gave an existence proof to the contrary, I will put this question to the working group: Can we solve this problem by switching the document to Informational status, and can the working group accept that outcome? That seems an easy compromise, and I saw it proposed but not fully discussed yet. This seems quite reasonable as well when one considers that PSD's proponents could very likely get the thing published as an RFC via the Independent Stream if they continue to find no progress here. So, please discuss this option on the list and I'll measure consensus on it at the end of next week as well when next steps are chosen. Mike objected to PSD generally, also long after WGLC completed. This too does not appear to have swayed consensus. (And he's been cogitating on that thread for a few weeks now...) As a reminder, we still need to do AD evaluation, an IETF-wide last call, directorate reviews, and IESG evaluation before it lands in the RFC editor's queue. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
