Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

Excellent. Then all my comments have been addressed and I have nothing further. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Seth Blank wrote: > >> I've reviewed. All the technical matters look good, and earlier comments >> have all been

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Seth Blank wrote: > I've reviewed. All the technical matters look good, and earlier comments > have all been addressed. I have two final comments: > > 1) Section 6.4 mentions changes to section 2.3 which include slightly > different language than in 7601. I see

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC will be on ARC-16

Ack - look for it before EOW. --Kurt On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Seth Blank < seth=40valimail@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Excellent, Kurt and I will make sure the notes from the current > discussions are accounted for and publish -16. > > Thank you, Barry. > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 1:02

[dmarc-ietf] WGLC will be on ARC-16

We have a good set of comments on -15, and thanks, everyone, for that. Kurt and Seth, please make the changes that make sense based on the discussion, and publish -16 when you've done that. When I see -16 go up, I'll put it into working-group last call. At the same time, I'll also ask the DNS

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

In article you write: >> 9.2 describes the problem, but it's expressed in terms of a DoS attack on >> (primarily) validators. The DNS folk will be more concerned with the >> overall load on the infrastructure caused by ARC, not specifically on >> attack scenarios. So in consulting the DNS

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Jim Fenton wrote: > 9.2 describes the problem, but it's expressed in terms of a DoS attack on > (primarily) validators. The DNS folk will be more concerned with the > overall load on the infrastructure caused by ARC, not specifically on > attack scenarios. So in

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Jim Fenton wrote: > On 7/16/18 9:17 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Jim Fenton > wrote: > >> >> I suggest that as part of WG Last Call that the DNS Directorate be >> consulted, largely to socialize this with them so they

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

I've reviewed. All the technical matters look good, and earlier comments have all been addressed. I have two final comments: 1) Section 6.4 mentions changes to section 2.3 which include slightly different language than in 7601. I see no difference whatsoever (walking back diffs 02-01, 01-00)

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On 7/16/18 9:17 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Jim Fenton > wrote: I suggest that as part of WG Last Call that the DNS Directorate be consulted, largely to socialize this with them so they aren't surprised by the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: > > I suggest that as part of WG Last Call that the DNS Directorate be > consulted, largely to socialize this with them so they aren't surprised by > the request load requirements. > Should the draft say more than what Section 9.2 already says?