Subject: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft questions (speak up!): Experimental Status and Considerations

From: Seth Blank <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 16:15:22 -0800

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/4Gu1EErK4iuo9pQnZ-uJ2tKpMDQ,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/X-3nVPUQgIy-AGt4tJfkbPZZTjI), I
was under the impression that working group consensus was that ARC would be
submitted as an Experimental draft.

I know Kurt has very strong opinions that we NOT proceed as Experimental,
and I wanted to make sure he got to state his case.

That said, regardless of outcome, I think the Experimental Considerations
belongs in the primary draft and not the usage guide. When reading the
draft, it is unclear why certain decisions were made or what their impact
will be (and there are several questions that any savvy reader will
immediately have), and this section makes these clear to a first time
reader.

So:

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 primary draft. We can easily
revisit how the section is titled if the outcome of #1 here changes
anything.

Seth

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:26:01 -0800

> revisit how the section is titled if the outcome of #1 here changes

+1 to both points.  I also thought this was consensus already.

-MSK