Subject: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC will be on ARC-16

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 16:02:04 -0400

We have a good set of comments on -15, and thanks, everyone, for that.
Kurt and Seth, please make the changes that make sense based on the
discussion, and publish -16 when you've done that.  When I see -16 go
up, I'll put it into working-group last call.

At the same time, I'll also ask the DNS directorate to have a look at
it.  As has been noted, we don't think there's an issue here, but I do
agree that it's better to alert the directorate to take a gander.

Barry, DMARC chair

---

From: Seth Blank <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 13:09:46 -0700

Excellent, Kurt and I will make sure the notes from the current discussions
are accounted for and publish -16.

Thank you, Barry.

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
wrote:

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

-- 

Seth Blank | Director of Industry Initiatives

E: [email-masked] | P: 415.273.8818

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 13:13:01 -0700

Ack - look for it before EOW.

--Kurt

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Seth Blank <
seth=[email-masked]> wrote:

> Excellent, Kurt and I will make sure the notes from the current
> discussions are accounted for and publish -16.
>
> Thank you, Barry.
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:52:06 -0400

> agree that it's better to alert the directorate to take a gander.

I have been advocating for punting some of Jim's points on the basis that
we don't want to derail the experiment that is ARC.  I believe we punted on
some of Bron's points as well early on.  I've taken this position because I
think the thing that's critical here is to determine if ARC, in operation,
provides any meaningful signal (or indeed, any damage) that we need to
capture to solve the problem this working group is chartered to address.

I'm assuming that we will return and give these deferred points due
consideration when we complete the experiment and come back around to doing
a standards track version.  Note that "due consideration" only guarantees
discussion; it does not guarantee that we'll come back and change things.

Am I wrong about any of this?

Should we be sticking some of these deferred items in to the WG tracker so
we don't forget about them later?

-MSK

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:56:27 -0400

Barry

I'll bring this up during DNSOP on Wednesday.

Any issues we just blame Murray? of course not.

Tim
DNSOP tri-chair

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 10:04:18 -0400

> I'll bring this up during DNSOP on Wednesday.

Thanks, Tim.

Barry

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:36:03 -0700

> up, I'll put it into working-group last call.

Have at it - I've just posted -16:

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
        Filename        : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16.txt
        Pages           : 35
        Date            : 2018-07-17

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-16
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16

--Kurt