IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Mon, 05 November 2018 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.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 2910F130E96 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 01:28:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ElBFYXZj54zU for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 01:28:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (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 A85B1130E41 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 01:28:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id t9-v6so4156031ljh.6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 01:28:52 -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=llRJtHqicDNlh6/VTz32YC+qW1JUrJ5IaVGAXGJb008=; b=fQXXjlo2qHg0dTVOItI5p59bOsHOlc4l9J7H76XfqilIFbHi3Ppt2uZknZQ1uisHCB CEaWbPG01j/rF9OpVn8pSEzNLROnhcwr/gi2YsTu1Bg3pM8GZdPx3xr/fjjgHnXrljvh tBPWL5WWTLvGU8ctPaxlUXP12xmQZgMnL5S+8=
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=llRJtHqicDNlh6/VTz32YC+qW1JUrJ5IaVGAXGJb008=; b=DXhg5btZ8LAEwxoN7tuAZjyHX/MSrnFm8f0C2vWjrSHIx3lxfdN7t+yKi/x5yUwQ4F u4LUpgfS49m6GuVmvEypNc0ojZn97Te2XxKMlXrp+tE3rPg8wtd4JO9prvj8yvQjgVzd M8MCnOw9KP2VhjgDeoc/MYc+6S+wBHZB+bUnJLRqI8dMGmHccZ+vW2r31x/so5gN+Mxw uQww184mquqvjV/4b7DC0k5oQnPt1m2IWJS/A4H1pueDzqmJgAbW+TtOg6Pe0qQFbVGr VsEwewG642ZkM4728c7631Kk2tdL7aUDuhLZSfGDera8WIHsjp3sITxDj6OGySkJS80Z RNHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJdnjrzgIvqT7NBZr5XmxPebWBPPoK8HPQbCW9E3aPNUXTI4PT4 XrBqoSeFCXWXJGMdPmH62tg6kvzPabuTZY9Gjun70A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fS+P93hxjRoeBxRrfQRjckaVt0KZpm6RWtrLgONbIXCvz8t7n4d98Nj8aSIf9pW0z7N+SpplzPkEnh9wDI+7E=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:710a:: with SMTP id m10-v6mr10003242ljc.66.1541410130688; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 01:28:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154030726741.31325.18068939197691810125.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A80F2CA9-7E97-49CB-87A6-C406C8002B6E@kitterman.com> <CAL0qLwbAaT6P6NUJC=j8Vg47Vd01ktR8xU7=D1JXZTcfTFdd0w@mail.gmail.com> <4082068.TRYGpCgONJ@kitterma-e6430> <CAL0qLwZ_WHb2Y2sw0OTYYoi4J=QFCd-z7PKHAn0PXxTA2kjSjQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZ_WHb2Y2sw0OTYYoi4J=QFCd-z7PKHAn0PXxTA2kjSjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:28:20 +0700
Message-ID: <CABuGu1pBJ_XPTdOfwozer-icPVVAotBMTW0H_CTRSjGaO7wTsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004b146f0579e78331"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/RAy75MECdY7TzYzwvgDwmzCOjsc>
Subject: Re: [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 09:28:59 -0000

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:13 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 2:25 PM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>

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.

--Kurt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email