Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft questions (speak up!): Experimental Status and Considerations

2018-01-02 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > While John Levine cited the benefits of the "experimental" approach taken > for EAI (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ > gvUecJuYLT9GIh5zbcZ_U9CgNkw), I'm also biased by the "let's all just play > nice" mess

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Clarifying the value of arc.closest-fail

2018-01-02 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, at 04:34, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > As I went through the edits for https://tools.ietf.org/htm > l/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-5.2.1 I was unable to > understand the value added by

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Section 5.2.1, header.ds considered confusing

2018-01-02 Thread John Levine
In article you write: >header.s is NOT defined: https://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email- >auth.xhtml Quite right, need to put it in the IANA considerations of something. FWIW, I added header.s to my SMTP daemon this

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Clarifying the value of arc.closest-fail

2018-01-02 Thread Bron Gondwana
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, at 04:34, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > As I went through the edits for > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-5.2.1 > I was unable to understand the value added by having the "arc.closest- > fail" listed in the AAR. Please read my examples again

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Section 5.2.1, header.ds considered confusing

2018-01-02 Thread Seth Blank
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:38 PM, John R. Levine wrote: > >> I don't see the point of the header.ds field. We already have header.d, >> so why not just add header.s? >> > > Yes, quite so. Please see my

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Section 5.2.1, header.ds considered confusing

2018-01-02 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:38 PM, John R. Levine wrote: > I don't see the point of the header.ds field. We already have header.d, > so why not just add header.s? > Yes, quite so. Please see my note from earlier this morning. header.s is already defined for 7601, we just need to

[dmarc-ietf] Section 5.2.1, header.ds considered confusing

2018-01-02 Thread John R. Levine
I don't see the point of the header.ds field. We already have header.d, so why not just add header.s? If there are two DKIM validations, the A-R header will look like this, no confusion I can see: Authentication-Results: example.com; ... dkim=pass header.d=foo.com header.s=abc;

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft-10 Section 10 - Algorithm Rotation - can we address separately?

2018-01-02 Thread John R Levine
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: I don't think this will be super complicated, but I do think it would be a mistake to try and publish now and then retrofit rather than adding it before we publish. I agree (which is why I started off with the first draft that is currently found in

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft-10 Section 10 - Algorithm Rotation - can we address separately?

2018-01-02 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 6:36 PM, John R Levine wrote: > I still don't understand why we need to say more than DKIM did on this >> topic. > > > I don't think this will be super complicated, but I do think it would be a > mistake to try and publish now and then retrofit rather

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft: Call for ARC Implementations to be included

2018-01-02 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Seth Blank wrote: > The Implementation Status section of the draft ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-14) > feels out of date. > Yes - I forgot to update that in the -10 version. I've added in information

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft questions (speak up!): Experimental Status and Considerations

2018-01-02 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Seth Blank wrote: > I'm beginning a new thread to explicitly address some differences of > opinion in the working group. > > Coming out of IETF99 and surrounding working group conversations ( >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft-10 protocol elements section and question about reducing section 8

2018-01-02 Thread Stan Kalisch
> On Dec 29, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > Chairs, should we start using the WG's issue tracker for this stuff? Speaking as an observer, I personally would find that helpful. Thanks, Stan >> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Seth Blank