Explicitly looping in that one person to see if his thoughts have changed over time.
--Kurt On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 12:25 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think it's something we should delay on. In my, admittedly > limited, > experience with these things, once something is in an experimental version > of > an RFC, then it 'has' to be preserved in the name of interoperability with > the > installed base. I think now is the time to remove obvious fluff. This > documents makes my head hurt enough as it is. > > If anything, it should be a separate document as it's got nothing to do > with > ARC, per se. Any utility of AMS past the immediate previous one is > entirely > speculative. Let's lean towards easy, not hard. Now is the time to prune > this. > > Having reviewed the thread that Kurt pointed me to, it seemed like this is > something only one person wanted. It didn't appear to have a lot of push > behind it. > > Scott K > > On Monday, November 05, 2018 01:54:33 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
