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

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <> Wed, 07 November 2018 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BDE9126CB6 for <>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 16:21:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EQjvTAcvPFzP for <>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 16:21:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EFD1124C04 for <>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 16:21:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n18so10229032lfh.6 for <>; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 16:21:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=afUkTQ5UU3vy2ZXB+KLHhnPwhczn2hYXjcyV4xVgu9A=; b=X7mAFr7zuDFH7/a3lx1fothfx7UXE0tye0Xt7r33st2UG5orCPapTOv1ZSMCOElThT ShghMRkpP+BIJT7I1wjuPWvi1ALK7V1+3pJlcKm2s8PdMVcVmxmOvRFvB2nVcGWu0aPc lkQoemQaTwqshP1oTX2Hzlv7EjA0rc3V+lgiQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=afUkTQ5UU3vy2ZXB+KLHhnPwhczn2hYXjcyV4xVgu9A=; b=gsxFY5R7emamgXv+/+C9iWdqE7fzRky4E6wYbgii2Xxg1f+x8xGzlJpZG+viXjxT2S l90nTr1K09a3wnZYsrtktikIkQLPbJWiM0pWV6yGoHOn56/zSSfqW/jHP5ObMOak03xa K8R5iK6iJI1OUh4xPmLAA3tK/kKGtfG3a+4vjbbYcFK3zpYV8WTNmQDespVxgWG/ALhv h6+xtrnZLVhMzgeRMm7WNsLRNQZJDv5zQtzFUMsbhkpyN0Z65h4E213JajoyRYSlqQsk ztToEz1xLgkcnze4ZL8hA+hy+RtssujTQ0fYR+OVQiY7JvEbIhtEpD5cPPUqdac3il1E lBYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLbtK8XF9e4MiZX/dAMqIZ2/pkPjhsD/+nhS8JGOwCKBVetXdHe rzhTGq7GqD1jwDZj1Ez7lyeBGp4jciMEBWgoy+SjT33giJRWug==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5f/PMa+H84NnT2o9luIj+3fJABgUK+CLR3GNZrmc/8uJdodO+1F1dsL8w020Se0vxStuYuRTV69OXSmLAs5rjU=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:cec8:: with SMTP id e191mr16192756lfg.13.1541550100276; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 16:21:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <4082068.TRYGpCgONJ@kitterma-e6430> <> <> <753be398-badd-4089-be3a-1fb027e98567@sloti7d1t02>
In-Reply-To: <753be398-badd-4089-be3a-1fb027e98567@sloti7d1t02>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 07:21:26 +0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Bron Gondwana <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000218894057a081a1f"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Concerns about Oldest-Pass (was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18.txt>...)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2018 00:21:45 -0000

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:52 PM Bron Gondwana <> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 20:29, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> Throwing it in because we were aiming at the "experimental" designation
> seemed to be the easiest way to resolve the non-progressing discussion when
> it initially cropped up in August 2017. The topic was permuted from
> nearest-fail to oldest-pass in January 2018 to make the calculation
> algorithm and interpretation of the data point a bit clearer but I don't
> think that anyone has changed their mind much from their positions in
> August 2017 - unless, as Scott pointed out, the one person who insisted on
> this has done so silently.
> I don't think any of my objections to being unable to distinguish between
> "sealed and didn't modify" and "sealed and modified" cases have changed.
> Having said that, it's easier to add an additional field than to take
> something out, so I don't object to simplifying and seeing what happens.
> Particularly since we're experimental.

Since we are now pretty much through even the IESG last call period, I'm
loathe to make any changes without a groundswell of assent across the
entire group.

Please take a look at the new Appendix B (
which was mocked out with Mail::DKIM. There are traces of where changes
happened in the AAR from the ARC chain validation - the motive A-R headers
were manually created by me and did not include the newer pieces since the
system that generated the A-R did not have access to the info. It's not
quite as easy to parse, but the info is there.