On 8/4/2023 11:39 AM, Jim Fenton wrote:
I’m even less clear on draft-chuang-mailing-list-modifications. Does it have to
do with the currently chartered work
DKIM WG charter:
"it will produce one or more technical specifications that propose
replay-resistant mechanisms."
I don't have an opinion about the quality or utility of this I-D, but it
has quite a few references to replay, including:
"The validation results in this specification are orthogonal to the
results indraft-chuang-replay-resistant-arc
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-replay-resistant-arc/>.
In addition to better supporting DMARC in the presence of
mailing-list modifications, this specification enables attribution
of malicious content back to the author. However this specification
is vulnerable to replay much like DKIM and ARC.
draft-chuang-replay-resistant-arc
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-replay-resistant-arc/>
validation is tolerant of header and message body modifications but
unable to provide attribution."
This would seem to answer you question. That is, it has text indicating
relevance.
You might disagree that it's relevant. That's fine, but to promote
useful discussion, details are needed.
From you.
That is, to the extent that you disagree about its relevance, it will
help to hear specifics, rather than your asking a generic question that
throws a burden of proof back on the document author, without providing
them any indication what criteria you are applying here or any detail
about why you think it not relevant.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
