[dmarc-ietf] Advancing ARC?

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Wed, 02 December 2020 23:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 C42263A161B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:53:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 lLPh_3Gr2eUe for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:53:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x534.google.com (mail-pg1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC5A13A1619 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:53:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x534.google.com with SMTP id m9so273107pgb.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:53:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=h5M2HNGRxsgb86APR4KEZKwhX5h33ECRLU4YqyNft94=; b=E2fYrTA4XDREUqOaE4wse6RSduAwvV8sNhxC1LQOk29/z7KVxZsJIcYm4fQLc7szoY 1c49gUbXGaBn3kmrDTNamkZnzslfQ47VvIh1xGP93W9J6oJ2UoPGGDFiRG3RMWU/rKfW 4w4hWdoc0Z+sEeUqzNL9/Q0opqgiybgiW03osmXfTJelYr8dgOGOk11YpnNs+jF5wYvE 6V0csBDD3qGdYboZRXHI8FZEc/zKdDqdd6vO6U2LmwKaIFyLdRbeyBIEvjGd27pDLSM+ GCC8dCuzLz1Secbtdis2W8TEEYqyV3zqau6Ulk+jpeyeim1GozeSWUMGOTiwKwqUzKQY ydnA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=h5M2HNGRxsgb86APR4KEZKwhX5h33ECRLU4YqyNft94=; b=EExqYhhX1HTqLW7+tAAepows8Y6vgqcgbXTN6gypVhIfqPa2Hck3XEMGmgWsVoSzWk Q3HsuzM+rfTuHghlD+plMIGa/c+1fPkdGwLIjlyB+8O0Px3Mpy7N14O4nTBjrOuDtDb8 BpNWvvV2cuFO0R5B/NkYWpXoVej3DaPbS9oGKrIvi3Up3W2bqlUPJBkj/rwl7Jdxysgy +dPBElogfHHtHH5UkBtuZeupVxSIEY/8+2NKttT8JrWtDIdAqlLZ3qwSvOM20m+98sOT p7NS1y4Nrnw1xM1f3khyEO3Tt75MPgvmg23SpyXwsxCzx/iPBZsxXX8ZHabvNHZFQWYO labg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533jTcs9iFYiO0MRfqUOVP3bPQDMVB3OM2noFBewna6s1aicgSft XQYCiv86mJNP1VeSHYLvc9oK6nKvzJ+tvg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzeXAAuwBJ+TaF10Z93B+chzhjuomKaUrxGHNQQjfgSaBxr4ucUNNEm3q0ByfreWQKOctBp2Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:9d:b029:18c:8dac:4a96 with SMTP id c29-20020a056a00009db029018c8dac4a96mr580499pfj.22.1606953206581; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:53:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p15sm47231pjg.21.2020.12.02.15.53.25 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:53:25 -0800 (PST)
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <38016bbf-b630-d4e9-532c-a7370412f707@mtcc.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:53:24 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xd7mQlVz3zUZiE2FY2Jy7k983mc>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Advancing ARC?
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: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 23:53:29 -0000

Was/is there a plan to advance ARC to standards track? I see in the rfc 
that there are some questions that assumedly need to be answered. I 
would hope that that list is not exhaustive and that other questions can 
be posed to determine whether to go forward.

As I've said in the other thread, it's been extremely hard to tease out 
what problem is actually being solved, and especially whether that 
problem is worth being solved in the first place. It seems to be that 
the Auth-Res from the intermediate mangler has some value, but I have 
been unsuccessful finding out why it is valuable.

That leads me to think two things are probably needed:

1) A problem statement/requirements which details why the mechanism is 
valuable and why it can't be done with existing technology

2) An informational report whether the experiment had value and 
especially hard numbers rather than anecdotes. As in why should I trust 
ARC to turn my policy to "reject" and not suffer consequences?

Mike