Re: [dmarc-ietf] indeterminisim of ARC-Seal b= value

ned+dmarc@mrochek.com Sat, 01 April 2017 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+dmarc@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6271294C1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 13:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IDMlAWTDesCd for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 13:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8C491293FB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 13:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QCNWS622HS00X91L@mauve.mrochek.com> for dmarc@ietf.org; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 13:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QCKVA263Z40003XB@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for dmarc@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Apr 2017 13:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+dmarc@mrochek.com
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>, Peter Goldstein <peter@valimail.com>, ned+dmarc@mrochek.com
Message-id: <01QCNWS0LANY0003XB@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 13:13:44 -0700
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:13:25 -0700" <CAOZAAfPZ+PGMaq2uAXXpKS3Eb5MUKchXa-OLi0oVh_yfaVcW6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANtLugO_D1Mz_v_341pc5O1mZ7RhOTrFA3+Ob5-onp72+5uRfA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.20.1703272118210.2533@ary.local> <CAOj=BA0YKHYrkseR=wwgZn0_GNBKfdL7jmHehgBRzxqGKV6C1g@mail.gmail.com> <2978391.eJVbVTHBlo@kitterma-e6430> <CAL0qLwbP4c+09=TNSOsDqKwcp6iw++aGW8jDhARoVwvsghSLvA@mail.gmail.com> <01QCKR5S5OXK0003XB@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAOj=BA3p-XQT=AeR4PHC-udWsn7rOmtR+UQHV0vbVofDKYOH_Q@mail.gmail.com> <01QCKXW9MZ4Q0003XB@mauve.mrochek.com> <1cf7325b-6f77-7cda-e330-025b7ddb0b92@dcrocker.net> <CAOZAAfM_fKf+egqmYQorobPB07kQpi5rP4rcb4Kj3fsLvcoRVw@mail.gmail.com> <2f516997-7c5e-2fad-1aeb-51590383f9c7@bbiw.net> <CAOZAAfMasvt8+_sFW=vvq-S-UHNVQ_H=1+sbkOojasm5GgNLRw@mail.gmail.com> <37056495-806d-b2c1-c5be-05dfbb7dda21@dcrocker.net> <CAOZAAfPZ+PGMaq2uAXXpKS3Eb5MUKchXa-OLi0oVh_yfaVcW6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/IAbnS1MpS02wwoUcC485VG9EGWo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] indeterminisim of ARC-Seal b= value
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:25:33 -0000

> What's the best way to proceed from here for the working group?

That's easy: The way to proceed is by describing the actual interoperability
problem that came up. In detail.

What you have done so far, AFAICT, is propose a change that at most facilities
a type of testing decades of experience have shown to have limited value.
This is a far cry from describing an actual interoperability problem.

This is, or at least is supposed to be, a technical list. Noone here is
going to be put off by complicated technical details. In  fact the absence
of such discussion was and is a major problem with the advancement of this
specification, and unless that changes fairly soon I'm going to put on my
working group chair hat and say some stuff that people are really not going
to like.

				Ned



> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> > On 3/30/2017 10:41 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> >
> >> If the consensus here is that the matter is not worth pursuing further,
> >> that is fine - I just want to make sure we're all talking about the same
> >> thing.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Except that 'the matter is not worth pursuing' isn't what I heard anyone
> > saying and it definitely wasn't what I meant...
> >
> > I'm not sure whether it's been presented here sufficiently, but I believe
> > your underlying concern is based on observed problems with implementation
> > of the current ARC specification.  That is, from interoperability testing,
> > the actual use of ARC is proving far too fragile.
> >
> > If that's true, then there needs to be an effort to a) understand the
> > fragility better, and b) consider ways to make ARC more robust.
> >
> > So while there has been strong push-back against the /solution/ that you
> > proferred, I am not clear whether there is working group understanding of
> > the motivating concern or with the way to resolve it.
> >
> >
> >
> > d/
> >
> > --
> > Dave Crocker
> > Brandenburg InternetWorking
> > bbiw.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmarc mailing list
> > dmarc@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
> >



> --

> [image: logo for sig file.png]

> Bringing Trust to Email

> Seth Blank | Head of Product for Open Source and Protocols
> seth@valimail.com
> +1-415-894-2724 <415-894-2724>