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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Mon, 05 November 2018 08:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86725130EBA for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 00:13:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vjW75knwFRVN for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 00:13:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25E7B130DE7 for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 00:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v5so462176lfe.7 for <>; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 00:13:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M7il5vbiVZY6iYFT3ysZlS/cYUxjFjtfxg4zddfxwBU=; b=dGJL5yneomuoz7hD52aqEJZUMT1Pedap8xpkXWmL9fe2LathGI3QFEVLPNbqKD9XDn yeKp0aHncuSw2hucR6MH+frOooRCFBo0oWSy60c3VN4ZcE90xterdy79WZMb/WMAJ4Iq eTiAZDZK0pzrS+LHZlkpf+4FO3JC4mkaGSka8gGdlFDSessd9dvWKT3yhPaXoSrMaEDr 9/Zrk56DZ0FaPIVsPzC3YFWDV3yXM+3MQ85thPtIIjSGZ7m4ckuvK4xqy3CAJiWLB2Xz 9xQgC8ZJjY5I14Fm9OuZeaES5+ryQRIpUqkWGvyjE9wAdazp6x0+RSjkJtVSvCpjhqxD PjaQ==
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=M7il5vbiVZY6iYFT3ysZlS/cYUxjFjtfxg4zddfxwBU=; b=VWjTR8ekZ2JUcdCEqOoedscSLoT8yJCet+a+YLEabfBA9+sGxMGZoMJguqk8Usa8Gu 0SwDEjNu9cNOgszZMUU/UflNtI+/nUWIpf6rOIkv8E7lO6q0ilS6Ons95H/LZYKV0POu zEglIvUYFKlSfKOedbasGTEpENvemeCga65Iehu0gHTLsg9GgEGUo8DMMObWNPqTBqYn ASDEph/jeCGL5DU1MurJrYEFU3kbP3DxVIGcnLcuipXv8qk1/8AxezXOhDK1ZBd4LwFZ qa2I5wo2Xxkh0tHYKYmw8PVpwVKjqQ/hvqRzO7A+zYP1pBU6mV6Zhbg7/7H00fUZr5gd JgwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gKYC90jyfa4IYivAYVBYfs7W8hOl60ZxVm+e02lqJqLZVWdLelD bdwqDJWdGBblIYEaDj728VxN2URuza3SUv207rQvTfAuYaI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cncABA3lJQeFP5TLVK+zze++vCV9KTXjAywNg7pMKs0CHTv8IOhAEA4EL/9bZdvuSP06ZIbT0bXUbWdDcLdYo=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4299:: with SMTP id m25-v6mr11766104lfh.115.1541405584160; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 00:13:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <4082068.TRYGpCgONJ@kitterma-e6430>
In-Reply-To: <4082068.TRYGpCgONJ@kitterma-e6430>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:12:51 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Scott Kitterman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004c7f020579e6742a"
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: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 08:13:17 -0000

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 2:25 PM Scott Kitterman <> wrote:

> I don't think it's something we should delay on.  In my, admittedly
> limited,
> experience with these things, once something is in an experimental version
> of
> an RFC, then it 'has' to be preserved in the name of interoperability with
> the
> installed base.  I think now is the time to remove obvious fluff.

That's the opposite of my understanding of Experimental.  Rather, I believe
explicitly calling it an experiment means we reserve the right to mutate or
even jettison portions of ARC we discover, through experimentation,
interfere with interoperability either among ARC components, or with the
operation of adjacent protocols, or provide more complexity than utility.

If there's ambiguity around what "Experimental" means, we should take the
time to sort that out and, if needed, add text to make it clear.

This documents makes my head hurt enough as it is.

I've felt that on occasion too.

Having reviewed the thread that Kurt pointed me to, it seemed like this is
> something only one person wanted.  It didn't appear to have a lot of push
> behind it.

Based on my understanding of Experimental, I think a one-off feature is
fine to include, again with the understanding that it could be omitted from
a Proposed Standard version because it isn't widely useful.