Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC, was WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Mon 01/Apr/2024 22:01:22 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 11:33 AM Todd Herr <todd.herr=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> Should DMARC-bis reference ARC? I don't know; can it? What I mean by that 
>> is that some of us have an interest in DMARC-bis being published as 
>> Standards track, and ARC is Experimental, and I don't fully understand the 
>> rules regarding down-referencing (is that the right term?).
>
> This would be fine:
>
> "One possible mitigation to problem X is [ARC], which provides for a 
> mechanism to demonstrate 'chain-of-custody' of a message.  However, use of 
> ARC is nascent, as is industry experience with it in connection with DMARC."


I'd insert a third paragraph in section 5.8, Policy Enforcement Considerations, 
after the 2nd paragraph, which explains not to blindly reject.  Let me try and 
expand the text above:

     One possible source of alternative knowledge is [ARC], which provides for
     a mechanism to demonstrate 'chain-of-custody' of a message.  However, use
     of ARC requires extra care in understanding its implications, as industry
     experience with it in connection with DMARC is still being gathered.


Best
Ale
--