On 1/5/23 10:17 AM, Wei Chuang wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:06 AM Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/5/23 9:20 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Thu 05/Jan/2023 17:33:36 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> I've added a few proposed milestones with dates
>
> I wouldn't call "replay-resistant DKIM enhancement(s)" the
> deliverable. I understand the WG name is DKIM, but two of the
> proposed drafts don't even mention it. We may call ARC a "kind of
> DKIM", but a solution based on it would be better called an ARC
> enhancement, no?
>
> How about "replay-resistant protocol"?
>
Sorry, ARC is a failed experiment that doesn't deliver what it was
supposed to deliver.
I disagree that it's a failed experiment. We're using ARC results for
forwarders who choose to generate them.
Well, it doesn't do what it was purported to do. That and it doesn't do
anything that DKIM couldn't do in the first place since nobody can say
why the seal is actually needed.
The DKIM wg should have no part of it. It should be
completely out of scope.
I agree with Alessandro's proposed language change that allows for
ARC. Moreover ARC is subject to the same replay issue as DKIM and
needs some sort of fix.
DKIM is a full internet standard and ARC is an experiment. This is the
DKIM wg. ARC had no problem copying the DKIM output. Nothing that
happens here will change that.
It's bad enough that this wg is considering doing unnatural acts with
the envelope, it would be even worse to require it down a rat hole of a
failed experiment.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
