Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC-Seal is meaningless security theatre

[Seth Blank <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 8/18/2017 10:00 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
>
>>
>> Right now, we've got deployed code that we know works and improves the
>> landscape. Everything else is - rightly or wrongly - conjecture.
>>
>
>
> Personal Point of order:
>
>    Using an 'installed base' argument for a brand new specification that
> is still in development and has minuscule deployment is not appropriate, in
> spite of having a long and storied history of being used to resist a
> proposal.
>
>    What's supposed to happen with a proposal is an evaluation of its
> technical and functional merits.
>


So let me be very clear, because I wasn't rehashing earlier conversations
from this thread:

Right now, everything in ARC serves a purpose, and the AS, AMS, and AAR are
all defensible.

As we've clarified ARC and dug into putting appropriate data into the AAR,
the usefulness of the AS has gotten less apparent - but it still serves
several purposes and has been explicitly asked for by several members of
the working group.

Right now, there is one person - with a valid concern - asking if we really
need the AS. That conversation was dug into on list, and the consensus
(which that person agreed to) was that his concerns might be right, but the
point could be argued over forever with valid stances from both sides, or
determined on its merits quite quickly once the ARC experiment begins.

My point is, we can actually begin the experiment now. The open technical
concerns are around "will this piece matter?" and they're more
philosophical than technical (except for the AS concern, which might be
practical) - but the data to answer them is at our fingertips, so let's go
get the data.

Seth



>
>
> The entire point behind bringing a nascent specification to the IETF is to
> get review and suggestions from a wider audience.
>
>
> d/
>
>
> ps. Note that I haven't commented on the merits of this particular
> proposal.  I like the intent quite a bit, but haven't thought about the
> technical or operational aspects yet.
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>