On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> My review of -14 noted problems with the abstract. While there have been >> some changes, the Abstract remains too... abstract. While the current text >> is better it really does not provide simple, direct statements about the >> problem(s) ARC is addressing nor the solution or benefit that it enables. >> >> Text like this needs to be written for people who are not trained in >> theoretical computer science and are not already deeply enmeshed in this >> work. >> > > The abstract's been rewritten numerous times, including with the help of > the Chairs and AD. I do like your suggestion, but would appreciate hearing > if other members of the working group concur with your guidance. > Dave, do you have sample text to suggest? > >> Note also that while typical discussion of ARC refers to it as >> establishing a chain of custody, no language like that is in the Abstract. >> I think that's a serious omission. >> > > This is a fair point, but I think discussing custody in the abstract has > led us down less clear paths previously. Raising these issues in a General > Concepts section seems to have clarified and simplified the document. > I haven't ever felt comfortable with the references to terminology like "chain of custody". In particular, that term typically references something that is handled by one party at a time and critically insulated against tampering, but (a) it's not clear to me that the chain is complete (non-participants do technically handle the thing of interest) and (b) the custody of what, exactly? If we want to keep that language or general concept, I think we need to be clear what the payload we're discussing actually is. It's not simply "the body" or "the message"; there's more to it than that. Is it "everything the latest ARC-Seal covers", for example? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
