On Thu 04/Apr/2024 18:13:37 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 8:50 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
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.
A file in each user's home directory listing allowed pairs of ARC's d=
domain and the list-id identifier of a List-Id: field? >
I'm a Gmail user. What's a "home directory"?
The place where they store your account information, including messages.
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.
Back to timing here. DMARCbis I-Ds seem to be mature enough to go out,
even if there are not yet a practical solutions to the ML problem.
Further delaying them until we find one is inadvisable. >
Then why are we tossing about all these ideas during WGLC, muddying the
waters?
Muddying is unintentional. It is an attempt at marking the way forward.
Yes, we need ARC, but we also need a method to convey agreements based on
it. We couldn't spell out a solution even if ARC were standard track
already. >>
We can just hint at it. Parts of the Doug's text sound good for that.
Here's a variation on it, mixed with the 2nd paragraph of Section 5.8: >>
[...]
So if I can summarize, I believe you're saying:
Here's a Proposed Standard. In some common deployment scenarios, we know
that it has some undesirable side effects. There isn't any concrete way to
fix that as part of the PS. You could do some X, which is this new-ish
experimental thing, or you could do some Y, or maybe both, and Z might
help, "whatever", but only one of those is well-defined, and none of them
are part of this PS nor are they published yet, and there's a non-zero
chance that we'll run out of energy and not actually do so.
Is that what you want to send to the IESG?
The current text only mentions Y and Z, in about the same tone (other knowledge
and analysis). Mentioning a work-in-progress X marks the way forward. If the
WG agrees ARC is the way forward, that is.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
