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

"Bron Gondwana" <brong@fastmailteam.com> Tue, 06 November 2018 09:51 UTC

Return-Path: <brong@fastmailteam.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 A3EC3128A5C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 01:51:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.982
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.982 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, MIME_HEADER_CTYPE_ONLY=0.717, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=OgZ9XwFS; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=L3RTQx6T
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 UYcjjo7ifUR3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 01:51:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F8C0130E8B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 01:51:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2DB21E07 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 04:51:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap7 ([10.202.2.57]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 06 Nov 2018 04:51:54 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from :to:subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=Tnh74GVMiCYzmJIU8bkZbdpmjaG7 40mwwshXoImL/hg=; b=OgZ9XwFSIDFWCUFoDWT2TDcNn8xnyJ+QxUqljo5XmkG6 nzVncjt8fTm0PYAlBsIFqw8D5E2RMaOZi0eqFxP/5rkuSNyK1f2646yUUvcgM26b ePP6rWLH3O5jXVoYX5mNfaErVCRY+tvRp0ejtKpmVRvKm+4F0exqebQ+vH1LeRQD tpk16YGskPPZ/ulYJ2e6S0l6GZTo29qhA/2lMmGRbC8ClgE0h6A2vxDOKBMIjDce i3Ioijh2Epd+sf98nqWHbLbFAPzpMG0pxg+GwyD+/Oqo1QrO75yZTONMajaTj0eC PQ3KDLwWHrTHsoaA7HcwwmHR6J0qdu8ktG1yrnUMmg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Tnh74GVMiCYzmJIU8 bkZbdpmjaG740mwwshXoImL/hg=; b=L3RTQx6TRBBgAJPsb9qGUF1d6lwHURPGQ HBXlsLbREzH8EX3mHdv+lzDH6zLrZbomyHXU4dLDinuQsfvqRDnar6tF/z/kqYnV dgH8qIe9F01bSZuTUCQlg/+5ITlsXbX8iG3i4lUutgPdXIR020iW8koPg2l6OsWX tyoX6fgTJIRioz5S2eHZNUw6P38PZRTTVf4J+MB/NNUqgxUIhhpbPy6V7l6yKrOM CxG7T13Lm+xPEuf59gHHhHz21q920x5t3TxrI/EusAepy5slfEmC8W8obtKdFJtY QxdLiKQixHlAh3HPqs0XZA8tEKD7557dr5yNVD2FxzfwyS2vfuiwg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:OWThW_qV9yvaDs9VAYVrqIu5RSHD5FJFO9elAVGzMvqsf0d4C0KlGA>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:OWThW8TkF48A4Kqka5oPGNGmyA6-hYUVJcaYaGxQ48VrUx2xIsx0hw> <xmx:OWThW94hWvtt25wf5xcmc3emfhPMOyrIKzD7k1Une-XO0vgpROjkSA> <xmx:OWThW22eugUXtgMyxem2nCYzssUE36jJg8SFmtU4Aku-rcQVHLzq4w> <xmx:OWThW6n-KHAiuB-GHBdm7BSfEeRHQrjiu0sIXWgTWI3MVeAfkjL5DA> <xmx:OWThW8gcsgofmTdh5KtnCK0lxdbg3z-UFBZvQU5lLl6wY4rq_JALHg> <xmx:OmThWxahrEB4Ai9RHzV_tmxAsVsCoMzuSN8hSudtO4wV-3vL4gMhhg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 95D7E20207; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 04:51:53 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
Message-Id: <753be398-badd-4089-be3a-1fb027e98567@sloti7d1t02>
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.5-610-gd7ceb27-fmstable-20181026v1
X-Me-Personality: 56629417
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1pBJ_XPTdOfwozer-icPVVAotBMTW0H_CTRSjGaO7wTsQ@mail.gmail.com>
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> <CABuGu1pBJ_XPTdOfwozer-icPVVAotBMTW0H_CTRSjGaO7wTsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 04:51:53 -0500
From: "Bron Gondwana" <brong@fastmailteam.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=defb108d6b2744d1b6dec136ba8ddc89
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/TFC8Wcbdj5_wzHVWgxI76fdyDmM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] =?utf-8?q?Concerns_about_Oldest-Pass_=28was=3A_Last?= =?utf-8?q?_Call=3A_=3Cdraft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18=2Etxt=3E=2E=2E=2E?= =?utf-8?q?=29?=
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: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 09:51:57 -0000

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 20:29, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: 
> 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. 
 
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. 
 
Bron. 
 
-- 
 Bron Gondwana, CEO, FastMail Pty Ltd 
 brong@fastmailteam.com