Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft-10 Section 10 - Algorithm Rotation - can we address separately?

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 18:37:24 +0000

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 6:36 PM, John R Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I still don't understand why we need to say more than DKIM did on this
>> topic.
>
>
> I don't think this will be super complicated, but I do think it would be a
> mistake to try and publish now and then retrofit rather than adding it
> before we publish.
>

I agree (which is why I started off with the first draft that is currently
found in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-10).
The mechanics of one doc, two docs, three docs more (can you tell that I've
been cleaning out Dr. Seuss from my bookshelves over the break?) is less
important to me than having a workable strategy. Migrations are always the
hardest part of an implementation.

--Kurt

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Jan 2018 14:13:47 -0500

On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> found in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-10).

Oh, good.  For reasons outlined in previous messages, I'm pretty sure that 
without some changes to the current spec, the only way to do a migration 
will be to invent new headers (ARC-2-Seal: ARC-2-Message-Signature: ...) 
which would look awfully silly.

R's,
John