On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> wrote:
> While John Levine cited the benefits of the "experimental" approach taken > for EAI (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ > gvUecJuYLT9GIh5zbcZ_U9CgNkw), I'm also biased by the "let's all just play > nice" mess that came from designating incompatible "versions" of SPF as > competing experiments (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6686 for the > eventual outcome of that six year long experiment). > I'm not sure I understand the comparison. ARC, as far as I know, doesn't have two factions attempting to advance their own agendas in a common space. We have just one protocol here. Instead, the bulk of the debate has been about whether this WG is prepared to stand behind its processing via the standards track, and I thought we were leaning toward the answer to that being "no" right now, and the core issue is whether we want it to be standards track first or have an RFC number first. If getting it published in some state is more critical than having it on the standards track, then "experimental" is, to me, the only option right now. And that's what I think I said in Singapore. I think that any protocol which has not already been widely implemented is, > in some sense, experimental - if you are looking at it from the perspective > of hind-sight, you might have done some things differently/more > efficiently/etc. One might not have called IPv6 "IP"-anything or may have > chosen a longer address space for IPv4 for instance. > > I'm willing to go along with the consensus of the group, but wanted to > (re)express my continued opposition to the experimental track for this. > Dave Crocker can probably articulate this better than me, but I'll take a run at it. There are two primary drivers for this decision for me: 1) ARC is trying to do something that's different enough from DKIM (i.e., recording some kind of handling chain) that we really should have some deployment and impact experience before we can say we have enough confidence to call it a proposed standard; and 2) The advice that all handlers need to apply a seal to the message, to which Bron previously and rather strenuously voiced opposition. I believe the decision was to defer on that issue until we've run some real-world experiments, which to my knowledge haven't happened. Unless I've somehow missed a change in posture either by him or by the specification (which is entirely possible), we're not done enough to say it ought to be on the standards track. The counter-argument to (1) is that Proposed Standard really is only a proposal, but I think our goals are loftier than that here. Then again DKIM went out PS, right? Well yes, it did, but we weren't in any perceived hurry that I can recall. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
