Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-09.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 08:20:22 -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 WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol
        Authors         : Kurt Andersen
                          Brandon Long
                          Steven Jones
                          Murray Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-09.txt
	Pages           : 46
	Date            : 2017-09-07

Abstract:
   The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) protocol creates a mechanism
   whereby a series of handlers of an email message can conduct
   authentication of the email 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.  Changes in
   the message that might break DKIM or DMARC 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-09
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-09

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: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 08:23:16 -0700

I've just pushed a new version (-09) of the draft which incorporates the
following changes:

# v09

* Edits related to Alexey Melnikov's 2017-07-25 message
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/TJnWqN1HIFpHS0Nhtxq0qnP6EhA
* Some changes in response to Dave Crocker's 2017-07-28 message
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/kZUVpzuOtODrloHfYSl1U1tUSe4
* Remove all of section 9.4 except the last paragraph
* Some of Seth's suggestions for section 5.1* incorporated per
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xUUbT15vqoBmH7RraJ_pesrd9z0

---

From: Seth Blank <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:11:11 -0700

I'll go over this in more detail and post substantive comments sometime in
the next day or so, but at first glance, a crucial change in 5.1 was missed
and the draft language still makes a normative change to 7601 ("data SHOULD
be added to the normal A-R content") to include data the WG consensus was
should not be in the A-R (like smtp.client_id), instead of adding this data
to the AAR where the WG consensus was that it does belong.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:39:19 -0700

> to the AAR where the WG consensus was that it does belong.

The way those fields are added seems wrong to me.  RFC7601 spells all of
that out in terms of distinct (but related) ptypes and properties, which
are separate things.  Adding "header.ds" as a single thing conflicts with
the way A-R is defined.  At a minimum this should reflect that, though it
also brings up the fact that A-R has a registry for these; are we planning
to ignore, replace, clone, or augment that registry for this purpose?

-MSK

---

From: Seth Blank <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:10:14 -0700

> to ignore, replace, clone, or augment that registry for this purpose?

Yup, that's why I explicitly asked if they were defined correctly in
question #4 here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xUUbT15vqoBmH7RraJ_pesrd9z0

Can the WG please revisit that thread and the open questions.

S

---

From: Stan Kalisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 20:10:18 -0400

One nit:  Section 13.1, line 730:  there's space between "Method" and the colon.

Thanks,
Stan

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:20 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
>