On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> . . . Or if we really want it in A-R, register it accordingly, independent > of ARC. > > But if we want to do that last thing, I'd like to have some sort of > discussion on the record for changing the scope of A-R, which is really > what we're talking about here. As I've said before, A-R's original purpose > was to collect data about authentication work done at the ingress MTA that > might be of interest to users or filters. We've specifically kept things > like IP addresses unregistered on the basis that your average human won't > know whether to trust one string of octets over another, and there's a > treatise in the appendix of RFC7601 and all of its predecessors that lays > out why. But that's the logic we applied eight years ago when RFC5451 was > written. If in the intervening time we've decided we want to repurpose it > to carry arbitrary stuff that might be of benefit to filters and concede > that users aren't the likely primary consumers as we intended, then we > should probably do up an RFC7601bis that says so, and renovate the prose > and registries accordingly. I'll put the editing work in, but there has to > be recorded consensus to back that move. > Where would you like to gather such a consensus? Is this DMARC-WG sufficient or would you want input from a wider community? I for one would be in favor of doing a 7601bis to reflect both the shift from human to machine consumption for the AR as well as these other pieces of information which are useful for machine analysis. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
