On 2/6/23 10:53 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Sat 04/Feb/2023 00:44:35 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
Other than removing the ARC references, this seems like a good start.
ARC is very similar to DKIM. Saying that it can have the same problem
doesn't seem out of place to me.
ARC is experimental and this is the DKIM wg. It's out of scope, imo and
will only distract from the issue at hand. In particular, the
editorializing about what it's useful for is not helpful at all.
I'd drop Section 4. We have discussed those topics, but enumerating
them in the problem statement sounds like establishing explicit limits
to the solution space.
Rather, I'd include a report of actual incidents, possibly showing
full message contents and estimated fallout dimensions.
Part of the "problem" is that potential avenues of "solution" can be
extremely problematic, if not flat out wrong. I don't think that it
hurts to have some discussion about the bounds of the solution space.
That is, here's the problem but if you think you can solve it in this
manner you need to show how it doesn't affect X, Y and Z.
And can certainly make plain that this discussion section is open ended
and that other avenues are encouraged.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
