> On Dec 29, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chairs, should we start using the WG's issue tracker for this stuff?
Speaking as an observer, I personally would find that helpful. Thanks, Stan >> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sections 4.7 and 4.8 from my proposal >> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/yl1HWdNbmQR1wHlCvG3eRl9ph5E) >> were not moved into the protocol elements section of the latest draft >> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-4) >> >> I spoke with Kurt, and this appears to have been an oversight. >> >> To be clear about the protocol elements section, I've cribbed it from DKIM >> and proposed it to: >> a) provide context for the entire ARC Chain >> b) define protocol components that are not specific to only sealing or >> validating the chain >> >> As such, I believe both the concept of chain validation status and the >> ordering of hops belong in protocol elements. > > +1. > >> This also opens the question of where Section 8 >> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-8) >> belongs. This section now feels more like a kitchen sink and implementation >> guidance. >> >> I would suggest: >> >> 8.1 be stricken as it's a normative modification of DKIM, or replaced with >> language to the effect of "ARC MUST be the last signer of the message; >> otherwise it cannot be validated on receipt." which can go in signer actions >> >> 8.2 should be moved to protocol elements >> >> 8.3 to signer actions >> >> 8.4 to verifier actions > > +1 to all of those. > >> 8.5 should be stricken (this is bad advice that could result in backscatter, >> and I'm unsure where it came from, I can find no working group conversation >> around this) > > It is a reasonable choice, however. That is: If you're going to give an SMTP > reply, this is the right one to use, but maybe warn that backscatter (and > provide or reference a definition of that term) can result. > > -MSK > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
