Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16

From: "A. Schulze" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:53:49 +0200

Hello WG,

Seth pushed me to really /read/ the whole draft, thanks!
I noted the following points that may or may not be so important...

- section-2.1 introduce "AMDM" defined later in section-3
- I read https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16
  in section-3, the links point to sections inside the local document
  but are intended to point to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5598
- section-12.4 could also mention the domain openarc.org

In general it reads well and clear to me. I support that draft.
(as well as the implementation just mentioned)

Andreas

---

From: Seth Blank <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:35:31 -0700

> - section-2.1 introduce "AMDM" defined later in section-3

Great catch. Based on Dave Crocker's feedback, we've defined the term
"Authentication Assessment" and moved the entire second paragraph of 2.1
into this definition, which ends up addressing this.

>   but are intended to point to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5598

Yes, there are some link and normative reference clean ups to do for the
final draft.

> - section-12.4 could also mention the domain openarc.org

Will do!

> (as well as the implementation just mentioned)

Thanks for the feedback!

---

From: Steven M Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 22:04:11 -0700

It's been quite a while since my last full read-through of the spec, so 
apologies if I blunder into anything long-settled. And apologies if I'm 
repeating something from earlier commentary, I'm trying to get in under 
a very liberal interpretation of the deadline as is... ;)

Love the way Section 2 introduces and describes the basics.

Section 3.1 - I would suggest "the three header fields /from a 
particular Internet Mail Handler/ compose a single ARC Set." (Addition 
in /slashes/.) Best to be explicit that ARC sets are organized by 
(outdated term) ARC Intermediary. Or "Sealer," but that would be a 
forward reference...  But without this, the reader might be left 
scratching their head until Section 5.1 makes it clear that an ARC Set 
is created by a single entity.

Section 4.2 - I would suggest "An `ARC Set` is a single collection of 
three ARC Headers (AAR, AMS, and AS) /from a single ARC Sealer/." Same 
reasoning as previous.

Section 4.3 - Typo, "AS header fields allow messages handlers" - 
"messages" should lose the trailing "s" (or I suppose it could be 
modified to "allow a message's handlers" if that's what was intended...)

Section 5.2 Step 1 -- Because of the preceding reference to maximum 
number of ARC Sets, rephrase for clarity at the end, "In the following 
algorithm, the /highest instance value ("i=") present in the ARC being 
processed is referred to as `N.`/"

That's it. Great work -- what a long way this has come since oar-dev 
started up in 2014!
--Steve.

---

From: "Brotman, Alexander" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 15:11:43 +0000

Along with notes from others, looks fairly solid.

7.1.2: "Authenticated Received Chains can be used to communicated
   authentication state between processing tiers."

Should likely be "communicate"

And seems like "Appendix B" should be completely removed at this point?

--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse
Comcast

-----Original Message-----
From: dmarc [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:27 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16

So begins Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16.

Please review the latest version:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol/
..... and send comments to the DMARC working group mailing list by 3 August.

If you review it and think it's ready to go and you have no comments, please post that as well.  If you think your earlier comments have not been addressed and should have been, please say so.

As you review, keep in mind that the target status is Experimental, and that after we've played with it for a while we'll have another chance to adjust it based on that experience.

--
Barry, DMARC chair

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