Re: [dmarc-ietf] Overall last-call comments on DMARC

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 4:16 AM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > So what are you suggesting should go in this document that's in WGLC?
>
> Section 8.6 states the ML problem very well, but it says nothing about the
> way forward.


Here, we agree.  And I'm saying: If we have anything concrete we can say
about the way forward, we really really should include it.  My personal
impression is that we do think we need something here, but there's no
consensus yet on what (possibly due to lack of visible evidence), and it
feels like a hole.


> Some sort of contract or agreement between sender and receiver seems to me
> to be unavoidable if we want to leverage ARC without having a global domain
> reputation system.  We don't have a precise method to do that.  We need to
> experiment and standardize something to that extent, which I hope this WG
> can do after publishing -bis.
>

I know what "contract" means abstractly, but what does this actually look
like to someone that's looking for specific guidance?  The text you have
here, by itself, is vague and I don't think many operators will know what
to do with it.


> Meanwhile, we can mention ARC, in Section 5.8  (minimal text proposed in
> another thread[*]).  How much can we expand that?  For example, can we
> whisper something about the need to trust specific sealers for specific
> streams?
>

If you really need ARC to make all of this work and interoperate with
lists, then I think we need to start talking about how we want to move ARC
out of "Experimental" first so it can become a normative reference.

-MSK, p11g