On 4 Aug 2023, at 11:53, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 8/4/2023 11:39 AM, Jim Fenton wrote: >> I’m even less clear on draft-chuang-mailing-list-modifications. Does it have >> to do with the currently chartered work > > > DKIM WG charter: > > "it will produce one or more technical specifications that propose > replay-resistant mechanisms." > > I don't have an opinion about the quality or utility of this I-D, but it has > quite a few references to replay, including: > > "The validation results in this specification are orthogonal to the > results indraft-chuang-replay-resistant-arc > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-replay-resistant-arc/> . > In addition to better supporting DMARC in the presence of > mailing-list modifications, this specification enables attribution > of malicious content back to the author. However this specification > is vulnerable to replay much like DKIM and ARC. > draft-chuang-replay-resistant-arc > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-replay-resistant-arc/> > validation is tolerant of header and message body modifications but > unable to provide attribution." > > > This would seem to answer you question. That is, it has text indicating > relevance. > > You might disagree that it's relevant. That's fine, but to promote useful > discussion, details are needed. > > From you. > > That is, to the extent that you disagree about its relevance, it will help to > hear specifics, rather than your asking a generic question that throws a > burden of proof back on the document author, without providing them any > indication what criteria you are applying here or any detail about why you > think it not relevant.
I was not disagreeing with anything. I was asking a question. That’s all. _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
