Given the intended status is Experimental, is this something that's a showstopper?
We have the debate about "fail" versus "invalid" that I believe we consider to be a showstopper for Proposed Standard, but we're willing to let slide for Experimental. Is this the same? -MSK On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:13 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On November 5, 2018 3:35:23 AM UTC, Kurt Andersen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >Taking this back to the dmarc list instead of the IETF-wide one: > > > >On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:41 AM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> > >wrote: > > > >> . . . I understand the desire to just ship it at this point so more > >> operational experience can be gained before another update. With one > >> exception, I agree with that approach. > >> > >> In Section 5.2. Validator Actions, I think it's highly unlikely that > >Step > >> 5, AMS (ARC Message Structure) validation of AMS header fields beyond > >the > >> one immediately prior in the chain is useful. > >> > >> Failure doesn't change the ARC result, so there are no > >interoperability > >> implications for removing it from the draft. The only reason to > >specify > >> anything is the notion of 'oldest-pass'. This looks like a dubious > >and > >> premature optimization to me. > >> > >> I didn't and don't plan to implement it. > >> > >> Later, after there is more experience with ARC, if it's established > >that > >> validation of AMS beyond the immediately prior step in the chain has > >> utility and there is sufficient efficiency associated with > >'oldest-pass', > >> it can be added then. 'Oldest-pass' seems like an easy way to get > >around > >> having downstream validators do AMS validation up the chain (by > >always > >> adding arc.oldest-pass=1 to all messages). > >> > >> ARC is complicated enough without this and it seems like any easy win > >for > >> simplicity in design to take this out for now (and we'll see about > >the > >> future). Deleting it also reduces the IANA considerations. > >> > > > >I'm not by any means arguing with your analysis and plans to skip this > >component, but I did want to point you, for informational purposes to > >the > >WG thread which was the genesis of this concept. It was originally > >proposed > >as "closest-fail" but then inverted to be "oldest-pass". You can find > >the > >thread from January 2018 at > >https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/_sG6ECCBfT5OPQ0LkDThzcGPHGI > >which references an older discussion circa August 2017. > > Thanks. I've reviewed it and my opinion is reinforced. It ought to be > removed. Nothing other than the immediate prior AMS matters for evaluation > of the ARC result. Everything about prior hops is purely for receiver > edification, not needed for the protocol. > > Scott K > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
