On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 8:21 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 6:52 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I suggest adding it to this paragraph: >> >> This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC and PSL >> algorithm cited above, in an attempt to mitigate this abuse. >> > > update to DMARC = yes; update to PSL = no > Why? > >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 1:44 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 5:01 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Since this is an experiment, Appendix A discusses the updates that >>>> happen. we don't actually say explicitly "if the experiment is a success, >>>> the following changes will be made" and perhaps I should add some wording >>>> like that. >>>> >>> >>> Something like this, perhaps? >>> >>> "A standards track update to [RFC7489] will take into account the >>> results of this experiment." >>> >>> ... somewhere in Section 1. >>> >> > A normative dependency from an experimental spec imposed upon a standards > track spec seems like a bad idea to me. At the very least it would impose a > timing constraint that DMARCbis could not be "completed" until after the > PSD experiment is "completed", analyzed and consensus achieved. > I thought that was exactly the intent here. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
