Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-07

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 11:41:41 -0700

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I've noticed that you've posted draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-08, so
> some of the issues identified below might no longer be relevant:
>
> 1) The new abstract doesn't even use the word "email". This needs to be
> fixed, because otherwise it is not possible to determine that this is
> related to email or DKIM from reading the abstract.
>
> The current abstract:
>
>    The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) protocol creates a mechanism
>    whereby a series of handlers of a message can conduct authentication
>
> suggestion to insert "email" before "message" above.
>
>    of a message as it passes among them on the way to its destination,
>    and record the status of that authentication at each step along the
>    handling path, for use by the final recipient in making choices about
>    the disposition of the message.
>

I've always understood the term "message" to mean "email" at the IETF,
given the titles of RFC5321, RFC5322, and what the "M" stands for in
"SMTP", "LMTP", "IMAP", etc.

2) I liked "Primary Design Criteria" (section 2.1) from -06. Maybe add
> it back as an Appendix? It is not important for new readers, but might
> be of interest to more advanced readers.
>

It seemed like clutter to me, but an appendix is probably fine.

> 6). In 9.5 (I think it is 9.6 in -08): should the document formally
> register the "arc" Authentication-Results method in the IANA
> Considerations?
>

Yes.

-MSK