Originally, draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-00, ARC could use any signing
algorithm supported by DKIM (which at the time were rsa-sha1 and rsa-sha256).
This was later reduced to rsa-sha256.
In the mean-time, DKIM dropped rsa-sha1 (RFC 8301) and ed25519-sha256 was
added (RFC 8463). In DKIM, the s
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 02:04:50 PM John Levine wrote:
> In article <82509274-bc89-495b-bd94-6d1f7846d...@kitterman.com> you write:
> >Is this milestone really done? The protocol document references
> >draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi, which isn't done yet. Doesn't it need to be
> >done too befo
In article <82509274-bc89-495b-bd94-6d1f7846d...@kitterman.com> you write:
>Is this milestone really done? The protocol document references
>draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi, which
>isn't done yet. Doesn't it need to be done too before this gets checked off
>(there is no separate
>milestone for multi
Reviewer: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
Review result: Has Issues
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document ed
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Ready
I have been assigned to review draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03 on behalf of the
ops directorate. This document specifies a message header field called
Authentication-Results for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the
results of message authent
Hi Scott,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, at 6:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Is this milestone really done? The protocol document references draft-
> ietf-dmarc-arc-multi, which isn't done yet. Doesn't it need to be done
> too before this gets checked off (there is no separate milestone for
> multi).
