On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/11/18 6:23 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Jim Fenton <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> So essentially we're creating a bunch of header bloat (creating duplicate >> header fields with different names where that could be avoided) because >> there are some MTAs that did not follow the specifications before. That >> makes me unhappy, but what matters here is not the behavior of all MTAs, >> it's the behavior of MTAs implementing ARC (that include instance number >> tag/value). If there's an MTA in the middle that deletes DKIM-Signature, >> it's not implementing ARC and the chain is broken. >> > > The DMARC WG is explicitly *not* scoped to make normative changes to any > other specifications so changing DKIM (for example) is not an available > option. > > Why are we doing 7601bis then? ;-) > Deleting or otherwise breaking one or more of the DKIM-Signatures on a > message has nothing to do with ARC per se. It's even possible that an > ARC-implementing ADMD could do such a thing. > > > I'm afraid I wasn't able to find that explicit statement in the charter. > On the other hand, it says that one of the options the WG has is to propose > "A form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit through > intermediaries." So I don't see my suggestion as being out of scope. > I agree that it's in scope for the charter, but we're pretty far down the road of trying what we have before us to be going back to square one. Given that we've settled on Experimental status, I propose this gets tabled until that's published. The experiment will establish what benefit ARC can provide, which I think is the most important output of this work. The change being suggested here appears to be one of efficiency, not something that will assist with evaluating that benefit. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
