While John Levine cited the benefits of the "experimental" approach
taken for EAI
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/gvUecJuYLT9GIh5zbcZ_U9CgNkw),
I'm also biased by the "let's all just play nice" mess that came from
designating incompatible "versions" of SPF as competing experiment
DKIM had a sound proof of concept when it was introduced, and I hate
to bring it up, but its key attraction, both technically and from a
marketing standpoint, came when it was tied to a DKIM Policy model as
the original specification had it proposed:
DKIM/SSP proposal:
Proposed:
o=~ NEUT
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
>
> . . .for me "experimental" comes from the fact that there are several open
> issues on which there has been lasting discussion within this group with no
> resolution that data from an experiment will quickly shine light on. . .
>
I'm less san
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
>
> 2) The advice that all handlers need to apply a seal to the message, to
> which Bron previously and rather strenuously voiced opposition. I believe
> the decision was to defer on that issue until we've run some real-world
> experimen
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> While John Levine cited the benefits of the "experimental" approach taken
> for EAI (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/
> gvUecJuYLT9GIh5zbcZ_U9CgNkw), I'm also biased by the "let's all just play
> nice" mess that came from des
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
> I'm beginning a new thread to explicitly address some differences of
> opinion in the working group.
>
> Coming out of IETF99 and surrounding working group conversations (
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5_OP8lVi-a3yHMS0hqs1clyLW
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> 1) Unless a chair speaks up that consensus is already Experimental, we
> should have the conversation now and nail this down.
>
> 2) Unless there is opposition, I'd like to move the Experimental
> Considerations out of the usage guide into the
I'm beginning a new thread to explicitly address some differences of
opinion in the working group.
Coming out of IETF99 and surrounding working group conversations (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5_OP8lVi-a3yHMS0hqs1clyLWj4,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/4Gu1EErK4iuo9pQ
