On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> 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 > experiments, which to my knowledge haven't happened. Unless I've somehow > missed a change in posture either by him or by the specification (which is > entirely possible), we're not done enough to say it ought to be on the > standards track. >
To be clear, Bron's concern was that "anyone can seal" destroys the signal to final receivers about who modified the message, which might be crucially important. The counter-argument was that ARC won't get adoption unless it's benign and therefore easy for intermediaries to make a sealing decision, so the compromise was to add arc.closest-fail to the AR/AAR. This way, ARC participants can seal when in doubt and a final receiver has the data to determine which sealers modified vs simply handled the message. Furthermore, 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. It was for these reasons that I proposed the experimental considerations section. I believe the argument in favor of Experimental is a weighty one, and I think ARC fixes a meaty enough problem that getting to a published RFC is of greater and more timely importance than getting to Proposed Standard. And if we get to Experimental and gather data quickly, Proposed Standard won't be far behind... S
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
