On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> wrote:
> (Reposting with adjusted subject) > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> > wrote: > >> Barry et al, >> >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Seth Blank <s...@valimail.com> wrote: >> >>> The current spec defines an arc authres method ( >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-03#section-8.1 >>> ). >>> >>> We believe there should also be registered ptypes and properties, that >>> should be stamped (but are not required, as they won't always be available). >>> >>> As long as AR stamping happens at the end of chain validation, when an >>> ARC set gets created this stamp will be included in the AAR, and AAR >>> construction can be clean with no additional language or requirements >>> necessary in the spec. >>> >> >> This area seems like something that would be productively explored in a >> F2F since it is pretty undefined right now and there are some divergent >> opinions kicking around... (see the thread with Brandon and Scott so far) >> > Section 9 of this draft should be a pretty good starting point: http://blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-arc-base.txt Maybe I should submit to the datatracker this just to make it more easy to reference bits of it, even if we don't use it? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
