Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-11.txt

From: Jeremy Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:04:15 +0000

On 22/01/18 22:47, [email-masked] wrote:
>         Title           : Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol

- Section 6 gives verifier actions for evaluating the chain state,
but they do not cover the need for the  arc.oldest-pass value
required by 5.2.1.

- 5.2.1 mentions a header.s but does not say to which header
  it relates.

-- 
Cheers,
  Jeremy

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:22:07 -0800

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Hector Santos <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> I believe the intent of the domain is his published policy record.  If a
> restrictive policy is published, the receiver should not presume it did not
> mean it.  When failure is detected, the author domain with a restrictive
> policy is given the world permission to treated it harshly.

That also makes the extremely strong presumption that the publisher of said
record is both authorized to make those representations, and full aware of
the effects across the entire usage space that will be affected by the
record. As RFC7960 and lots of pain with SPF has demonstrated, such
coincidences are painfully rare - to the point where, as much as I would
like to think otherwise, I have to assume incompetence.

--Kurt