On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 9:15 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> > On 8/5/23 9:05 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 2:46 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > >> Well, for starters ARC doesn't have broad deployment. But the author >> doesn't say why ARC is needed or relevant. That is the point here. *All* >> changes need to be justified including any imported mechanisms. The less >> rat holes the better. Same with the mailing list modification draft. Why is >> that even relevant? >> > > With respect to ARC: There's a difference between asking for justification > and demanding that the discussion be stopped before it even starts. One of > those is not okay. > > Ok, justify it. Even the author says ARC brings nothing to the table. That > is not OK. Peddle the ARC agenda in a more appropriate venue. > We see a fair amount of important traffic carrying ARC headers, and we use ARC negative assertions all the time. It's the positive assertions that have a trust issue and folks in M3AAWG have a work stream to tackle that. Moreover the two proposed I-D don't need that trust anyways. -Wei
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
