On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:52 PM Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmailteam.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 20:29, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > Throwing it in because we were aiming at the "experimental" designation > seemed to be the easiest way to resolve the non-progressing discussion when > it initially cropped up in August 2017. The topic was permuted from > nearest-fail to oldest-pass in January 2018 to make the calculation > algorithm and interpretation of the data point a bit clearer but I don't > think that anyone has changed their mind much from their positions in > August 2017 - unless, as Scott pointed out, the one person who insisted on > this has done so silently. > > I don't think any of my objections to being unable to distinguish between > "sealed and didn't modify" and "sealed and modified" cases have changed. > > Having said that, it's easier to add an additional field than to take > something out, so I don't object to simplifying and seeing what happens. > Particularly since we're experimental. > Since we are now pretty much through even the IESG last call period, I'm loathe to make any changes without a groundswell of assent across the entire group. Please take a look at the new Appendix B ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-20#appendix-B) which was mocked out with Mail::DKIM. There are traces of where changes happened in the AAR from the ARC chain validation - the motive A-R headers were manually created by me and did not include the newer pieces since the system that generated the A-R did not have access to the info. It's not quite as easy to parse, but the info is there. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
