In article <13429029.WxFjRkil8E@kitterma-e6430> you write:
>> Stall ARC for a few more months until we can get ed25519 into the
>> libraries, then adjust the document to make it MUST verify both.
>
>I doubt you'll see it in OpenARC until after OpenSSL has a release that
>supports ed25519. That ma
That is also what I remember, and why I proposed the Experimental
Considerstions as part of the primary draft and not the usage guide.
Kurt had some strong opinions on why they belonged in the usage guide,
which I suggest we revisit in another thread.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 15:11 Dave Crocker w
On 12/21/2017 9:29 AM, Brandon Long wrote:
I would have preferred not to defer it when arc was on standards track,
but now that it's experimental,
I recall an extended discussion that produced agreement on experiment.
I don't recall seeing a discussion to reverse that, nor a change in
circum
On Thursday, December 21, 2017 11:57:44 AM John Levine wrote:
> In article
<1513857489.3531319.1212273208.18fe8...@webmail.messagingengine.com> you
write:
> >I certainly concur with Brandon here - changing ARC algorithm looks like
> >a very messy proposition, I expect you'd pretty much have to do
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
>
> . . .when arc was on standards track, but now that it's experimental . . .
>
It's not experimental - that was a proposal in Prague when we were
considering pushing for WGLC before Singapore. Since we are continuing to
iterate and clean up
Now from my personal email.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 09:30 Brandon Long wrote:
> I would have preferred not to defer it when arc was on standards track,
> but now that it's experimental,
> I could see deferring it. I'm also fine with John's approach to wait for
> dcrup, though I don't know many
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 9:23 AM Seth Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 8:57 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
>> Simple administrative approach:
>>
>> Stall ARC for a few more months until we can get ed25519 into the
>> libraries, then adjust the document to make it MUST verify both.
>>
>
> Is there
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 8:57 AM, John Levine wrote:
> Simple administrative approach:
>
> Stall ARC for a few more months until we can get ed25519 into the
> libraries, then adjust the document to make it MUST verify both.
>
Is there any appetite in the group to handle rotation in a separate
doc
In article <1513857489.3531319.1212273208.18fe8...@webmail.messagingengine.com>
you write:
>I certainly concur with Brandon here - changing ARC algorithm looks like
>a very messy proposition, I expect you'd pretty much have to do a window
>where both the old and new algorithm were supported - with
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017, at 17:12, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Brandon Long
> wrote:>>
>> I think algorithm rotation is more challenging for ARC than it is for
>> DKIM, since with DKIM you can just sign with both... but for ARC,
>> there's a chain of signers and the
10 matches
Mail list logo
