[dmarc-ietf] Re: Evaluating consensus on the idea of making ARC "Historic"

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

The objection collection period is over, and we seem to have clear
consensus on Seth's objection, among those objecting:

> I think we should NOT make ARC historic, yet.
>
> 1. ARC is actively deployed and utilized
> 2. No interoperable replacement is yet published
>
> I acknowledge ARC is not as useful as we'd hoped, and we've learned a good deal which has been
> woven into DKIM2. I do not at all object to ultimately making the move to historic.
>
> I simply believe DKIM2 should obsolete / make ARC historic when it publishes, so there's a clear upgrade
> path. i.e. when we have a new protocol that works and interoperates, that's the culmination of the
> experiment and when the bit flips.

Point 1 supposes that there's deployment of both applying ARC seals
*and* checking them; it would be good to have some real data on the
latter -- are they being widely checked and do those who are checking
them find the results useful?

Point 2 simply asks that we defer a decision on setting ARC aside
until after DKIM 2 is ready and we have some validation of it.

The next step is for those who still want to proceed with making ARC
Historic *now*... to respond to these objections and either accept the
suggestion to wait, or to address reasons we should not.

Just as I would like to see data about point 1, I would also like to
see data from those who reject point 1, to the extent that we have
any.  "No it's not," won't, by itself, be a sufficient addressing of
the objection.  That probably means that we need to hear from some of
the major email services.

The discussion of this starts now, and let's give it two weeks *after*
the IETF meeting is over -- so let's say we give it until 7 August and
then see where we are.  Again, please keep the discussion focused and
concise.  It'll be much easier for everyone to follow along if we make
our points concisely.

Barry, as chair