Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 23:51:15 -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-06.txt
	Pages           : 46
	Date            : 2017-07-17

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-06
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-06

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: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 08:56:53 +0200

> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-06

Highlights of changes in this version:

   1. Added rspamd as another existing implementation (section 9)
   2. Clarified the sealing rules in the case of a failed chain (section
   6.4.2)
   3. Added parenthetical notes to two sections pertaining to the
   additional information desired for the AAR per list conversations (sections
   5.1.3 and 6.4.6)

--Kurt