On 5/17/2016 12:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
he charter enumerates three tracks, the first of which appears to allow
discussion of new protocols; in particular, one might argue that ARC is
a "form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit through
intermediaries". However, in the second track, it says "The working
group will not develop additional mail authentication technologies, but
may document authentication requirements that are desirable", and there
are chunks of ARC that are clearly new. (Having now implemented ARC, I
can attest that there was enough new code needed that I would call it
"new".)
Absent a desire to form a distinct working group to develop ARC, I think
we need to discuss rechartering before we can entertain this motion.
I don't.
Relevant charter text:
The working group will explore possible updates and extensions to the
specifications in order to address limitations and/or add
capabilities.
...
Specifications produced by the working group
...
1. Addressing the issues with indirect mail flows
The working group will specify mechanisms for reducing or eliminating
the DMARC's effects on indirect mail flows, including deployed
behaviors of many different intermediaries, such as mailing list
managers, automated mailbox forwarding services, and MTAs that
perform enhanced message handling that results in message
modification. Among the choices for addressing these issues are:
- A form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit
through intermediaries.
- Collaborative or passive transitive mechanisms that enable an
intermediary to participate in the trust sequence, propagating
authentication directly or reporting its results.
as against:
2. Reviewing and improving the base DMARC specification
The working group will not develop additional mail authentication
technologies, but may document authentication requirements that are
desirable.
Any interesting topic produces real challenges in charter-writing and
even more challenges in charter-reading.
However I read Item 1 as exactly matching the issue at hand and I read
that text as being unambiguously perfect for the specific proposal at
hand. (Hint: this was not an accident.)
The current topic has nothing to do with Item 2, which is where the
constraint is placed. So the constraint is not relevant for the current
topic.
Yes, one certainly could wish for better writing. Sorry about that.
But really...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
