Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 22:09:00 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance of the IETF.

        Title           : Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol
        Authors         : Kurt Andersen
                          Brandon Long
                          Steven Jones
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-05.txt
	Pages           : 45
	Date            : 2017-06-29

Abstract:
   Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) permits an organization which is
   creating or handling email to indicate its involvement with the
   handling process.  It defines a set of cryptographically signed
   header fields in a manner analagous to that of DKIM.  Assertion of
   responsibility is validated through a cryptographic signature and by
   querying the Signer's domain directly to retrieve the appropriate
   public key.  Changes in the message that might break DKIM can be
   identified through the ARC set of header fields.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-05
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-05

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 06:32:44 -0700

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:09 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

>         Title           : Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol (-05)
>         Date            : 2017-06-29
>

The changes in this version of the document are limited to removing the
"cv=invalid" option, collapsing it into "cv=fail" and adding a little
explanatory text in a couple of places regarding the handling and
interpretation of "fail"ed chains for subsequent mediators.

This change came from a dialog on the list last week and a follow-up verbal
discussion. Please let me know if there are questions about it.

--Kurt

---

From: Brandon Long <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:37:24 -0700

Looking through the changes, I see that in 5.2.2 we previously and still
say that the AAR field should be unknown.  Unknown is a valid value for
result names for dkim-adsp and rrvs, but I'm curious why we would use that
and not just fail?  fail seems to match better, especially now that we
don't differentiate between invalid and fail in the cv value.

We also discussed signing/verifying a cv=fail differently, which isn't in
the draft yet (I don't think, I was looking at the diff not the whole
document).

We discussed that the signing/verifying of a cv=fail would only do so based
on the single (presumably last) hop that contained the cv=fail.

So, the AMS would be added/verified like normal, but the AS would only sign
the as/ams/aar of that hop.

Brandon

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> (-05)
> This change came from a dialog on the list last week and a follow-up
> verbal discussion. Please let me know if there are questions about it.
>
> --Kurt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
>