[dmarc-ietf] Concerns about Oldest-Pass (was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18.txt>...)

Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com> Mon, 05 November 2018 03:35 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C358B128CF2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 19:35:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OLj1rBjiGr8r for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 19:35:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EF04126BED for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 19:35:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id g26-v6so6658534lja.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 04 Nov 2018 19:35:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=njE83QnCJLmK0jsUGGVZJA+8dB9oe+KkMSpPzAV6LhI=; b=Y8nUs2v9691RQCy473DLStsPMOto098o+CmAzUZBw3hC3+WJqMeT1zLZOdJZSgHDU1 ioNSyQH30Yct3Hr0U5bIpi6o5ZDoMtEGwWzvUxras3lhQeFGsBN0ZbkhTbOCBLzvutzr rv8+bpuipIU7PHv6rpFyxp6cVXDo+GwyA9sVc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=njE83QnCJLmK0jsUGGVZJA+8dB9oe+KkMSpPzAV6LhI=; b=OBuzF4JIIC4pqzaBDaHVx0cnvn4rg/Bt3oQBS5eFDRdGTUrCz8qGQ/2OLtd1702pos EUS2/4/w+V3uOlcxSsz/7LlRmUpmCgVznAg7THU0R9NR5exrEhG6l5kJmubd+vwxNVek 6Vne+sO6SAI6U7OTMCkwXo7UtGP/d1lDMTfdO91KV00HROoBOWKK4vfj8TSf+45PFAUy utOqpMnB4Bsu5qsZrRcrRQq7jLqTVwWnHHM+y5GIgIzRU72duP2L5mXHOqjJJ5KcYtIC Rfz6bVp+bmK4JCf/1IDC/9eyX2KGYmUX6yMqGM8bjhnEk3kBgjY2zgpA6+eUqYAyNYOK JFsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIUsx/zGVp+zhvcD/3Hq19roh1kAWd1TpeZfStZKo4O9SjCle5W BkPVB972q+BvznGalNZUpJdE99SiBv58gqQ5wewey/qaamjcew==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5eB6xn/fbEIlrGCJsqVs6UNsTVDTkJxxEDXS2T6JfyRRMDC8fL4KXTr8+rxMfHB/MEJlATv/os0zUoQ9o4QcHc=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9e81:: with SMTP id f1-v6mr14215836ljk.100.1541388953536; Sun, 04 Nov 2018 19:35:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154030726741.31325.18068939197691810125.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5E1058DF-99CE-4D64-A204-B7710914CFBC@kitterman.com>
In-Reply-To: <5E1058DF-99CE-4D64-A204-B7710914CFBC@kitterman.com>
From: Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 10:35:23 +0700
Message-ID: <CABuGu1oB1B1K-hgazUzMsM7Z1bS2XDs9ZC+MF3Lsv4PiSmh+0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000009602e0579e295df"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9_nLFZAwN4KvpLQhqlGf7GcPrTs>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Concerns about Oldest-Pass (was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18.txt>...)
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 03:35:58 -0000

Taking this back to the dmarc list instead of the IETF-wide one:

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:41 AM Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> 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
which references an older discussion circa August 2017.