Subject: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 12:51:45 +0100

I've reviewed recent changes and they look like an improvement over 
earlier versions. I have a few minor comments:

1) I think several references need to be reclassified as Normative:

    [I-D-7601bis]
               Kucherawy, M., "Message Header Field for Indicating
               Message Authentication Status", February 2018,
               <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
               draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/>.

I am pretty sure this document is a Normative reference for ARC. Please 
move it to Normative references.

    [draft-levine-eaiauth]
               Levine, J., "E-mail Authentication for Internationalized
               Mail", August 2018, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
               draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth-03>.

This also looks like a Normative reference. E.g. see the text in Section 
4.1.4 of this draft.

2) I am glad that broken examples from Appendix B were removed, but I 
would like to have some examples in the document. Is somebody working on 
generating these?

Thank you,

Alexey

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:15:36 -0400

On 10/25/2018 7:51 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> would like to have some examples in the document. Is somebody working
> on generating these?

+1.

Especially examples of DMARC.

-- 
HLS

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:14:43 -0700

> This also looks like a Normative reference. E.g. see the text in Section

Both of these are indeed normative in usage, but I was under the impression
that one could not refer to I-Ds as normative.

> would like to have some examples in the document. Is somebody working on

Yes, work is in progress. It is really hard to do "fake" signing of
non-existent IP and domains with real production software. That has been
the hangup.

--Kurt

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 20:04:44 -0700

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:15 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> Both of these are indeed normative in usage, but I was under the
> impression that one could not refer to I-Ds as normative.
>

At least 7601bis will be an RFC at the same time as this one is, if not
sooner.  I don't know what the plans are for the other one.

> non-existent IP and domains with real production software. That has been

You can do that with OpenARC, I believe.  You don't need an IP address to
seal something.

-MSK

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Oct 2018 10:44:12 -0400

In article <CAL0qLwZ9x4tZhMFWrCGN4LNxTCHbSDMRJGAECuAJoev7VnGj=[email-masked]> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-

Also see Scott's LC comment on 7601bis.  There's a bunch of stuff in 7601 not
in the new draft, so 7601bis is really an update, not a replacement for 7601.

R's,
JOhn

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 15:29:35 -0700

> in the new draft, so 7601bis is really an update, not a replacement for

Well, I don't think it was the intent to do an update, so I'm going to have
to go review that.

I still think it will ship before ARC does, rendering Kurt's question moot
anyway.

-MSK