Re: [dmarc-ietf] indeterminisim of ARC-Seal b= value

Hi Seth,

Can you describe in detail the fragility you've observed?  I saw Peter
(sorry for "Paul", it was 4am) upthread somewhere say that a few different
projects had various problems found, but I don't recall him saying exactly
what they were.

-MSK

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> wrote:

> Thank you, Dave.
>
> What's the best way to proceed from here for the working group?
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/30/2017 10:41 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
>>
>>> If the consensus here is that the matter is not worth pursuing further,
>>> that is fine - I just want to make sure we're all talking about the same
>>> thing.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Except that 'the matter is not worth pursuing' isn't what I heard anyone
>> saying and it definitely wasn't what I meant...
>>
>> I'm not sure whether it's been presented here sufficiently, but I believe
>> your underlying concern is based on observed problems with implementation
>> of the current ARC specification.  That is, from interoperability testing,
>> the actual use of ARC is proving far too fragile.
>>
>> If that's true, then there needs to be an effort to a) understand the
>> fragility better, and b) consider ways to make ARC more robust.
>>
>> So while there has been strong push-back against the /solution/ that you
>> proferred, I am not clear whether there is working group understanding of
>> the motivating concern or with the way to resolve it.
>>
>>
>>
>> d/
>>
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmarc mailing list
>> dmarc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: logo for sig file.png]
>
> Bringing Trust to Email
>
> Seth Blank | Head of Product for Open Source and Protocols
> seth@valimail.com
> +1-415-894-2724 <415-894-2724>
>