Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 3:25 PM, A. Schulze wrote: > > I can give an update on the list. > please :-) OpenARC is effectively in an Alpha state, implementing the -03 draft. The code is available via github. It is correctly validating and generating seals and signatures and generating ARC-Authe

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

Am 01.06.2017 um 00:11 schrieb Murray S. Kucherawy: > I can give an update on the list. please :-) > Status reports aren't a good reason to hold a F2F meeting; meeting time is > for discussion. yes, there whare long disscussion thread on this list, that make it (to me) hard to follow. But I

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

I'll also be in Prague, but will unfortunately not be able to make the hackathon. I think there are four items for the WG to discuss that most likely will not be resolved by mid July: - The ARC specs (the current spec and the proposed spec, and how to merge if this is what the group wants) - The A

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 7:57 AM, A. Schulze wrote: > Am 29.05.2017 um 18:49 schrieb Barry Leiba: > > We've had one request for a DMARC session in Prague, with no further > > response from the working group. > > I didn't follow all ARC discussion over the last months. An update > is welcome. Also

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > We've had one request for a DMARC session in Prague, with no further > response from the working group. > > We've had one suggestion for an interop test in Prague, with no > further response from the working group. > > I would like to schedule

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

I have requested a 30-minute slot (in a U-shaped room arrangement). I can change this to 60 minutes if we decide by Friday that we'd like more time. I'd rather err on the side of keeping us tight and not booking people's time unnecessarily. Barry On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Kurt Andersen (

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

>>> Most of the effort has been focused on getting ARC deployed in to >>> production so there has been relatively little attention to the "what's >>> next" question. Peter had started a thread a few months ago but it did not >>> get much (or any) traction. How sacrosanct is the "deliverable" list i

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Hi Kurt, > > On 31 May 2017, at 06:49, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > even if we need to discuss the next steps, we haven't done that on the >> list yet, so we >> don't know that we need face time for it. >> >> > Most of the effort has been

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

Hi Kurt, On 31 May 2017, at 06:49, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: >> even if we need to discuss the next steps, we haven't done that on the list >> yet, so we >> don't know that we need face time for it. > > Most of the effort has been focused on getting ARC deployed in to production > so there has

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > > Anyone who wants to work on this at the Hackathon, please register > (free) for the hackathon > ... > sooner is better, so we can track who's participating. > Done - I had n

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

(Putting Murray on explicit CC to alert him to the openarc points.) > AFAIK, Steve Jones has been in touch with the hackathon > organizers to have ARC added to the slate. Both Steve and I will be coming > to Prague and several others from the group are expected as well. There is an ARC project li

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

[Taking my reply to the initial thread so not to clog this one] On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 09:34:49 AM Seth Blank wrote: > > Resolved items: > > - Handling of multiple incoming AR headers (resolved, but language not > yet > > in spec) > > I

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 09:34:49 AM Seth Blank wrote: > Resolved items: > - Handling of multiple incoming AR headers (resolved, but language not yet > in spec) If this is resolved in favor of not handling multiple AR header fields (which IIRC is the plan), then something needs to specify the com

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

We've been working with Murray to get OpenARC to completion. As we near the finish line, a few nuances in the spec have raised concerns, everything has been brought to the working group. I don't think any of these fall into "unnoticed issues," just matters that still need resolution. Open items: -

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

I strongly agree about the "not for reporting" part, but what probably would be good is to get such reports now, so that one might tell whether there's a previously-unnoticed issue with ARC as there turned out to be with DMARC. If there were such an issue, a meeting would be a good idea. Best

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

didn't follow all ARC discussion over the last months. An update is welcome. Also it would be helpful if Murray could give an update on his openarc project. However IETF face-to-face meetings are not for reporting. They are for working to resolve outstanding issues. Reporting can be do

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

Am 29.05.2017 um 18:49 schrieb Barry Leiba: > We've had one request for a DMARC session in Prague, with no further > response from the working group. I didn't follow all ARC discussion over the last months. An update is welcome. Also it would be helpful if Murray could give an update on his ope

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > We've had one request for a DMARC session in Prague, with no further > response from the working group. > > We've had one suggestion for an interop test in Prague, with no > further response from the working group. > Yes to both. AFAIK, Stev

[dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

We've had one request for a DMARC session in Prague, with no further response from the working group. We've had one suggestion for an interop test in Prague, with no further response from the working group. I would like to schedule a session -- at least a short one -- but I'm not going to do that