From nobody Fri Dec 2 11:25:22 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietf.org Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5378E1297DE; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:25:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.39.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148070672133.31869.13713006771162948764.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:25:21 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 19:25:21 -0000 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 of the IETF. Title : Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol Authors : Kurt Andersen John Rae-Grant Brandon Long J. Trent Adams Steven Jones Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-01.txt Pages : 43 Date : 2016-12-02 Abstract: Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) permits an organization which is creating or handling email to indicate its involvement with the handling process. It defines a set of cryptographically signed header fields in a manner analagous to that of DKIM. Assertion of responsibility is validated through a cryptographic signature and by querying the Signer's domain directly to retrieve the appropriate public key. Changes in the message that might break DKIM 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's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-01 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 nobody Mon Dec 12 13:35:40 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BEF7129D09 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:35:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=crash.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q7qP19zm-ak8 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:35:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from segv.crash.com (segv.crash.com [IPv6:2001:470:1:1e9::4415]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E97331289C4 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:35:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.10.10.41] (70-36-157-26.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [70.36.157.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by segv.crash.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/cci-colo-1.6) with ESMTP id uBCLZRux071641 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:35:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from smj@crash.com) X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 segv.crash.com uBCLZRux071641 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crash.com; s=201506-2k; t=1481578534; bh=IBfjdJNRxFgXRbpDLw5CG3OQrF8L1TVEXetzOe73HGM=; h=To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=HX8TjXBEIu70tRBkU13mKqko8ejABz7jeEumgcg3iEO+N658nK6rdU7owKpbqnz7H rmMHJHuuB1OnLQHrR3UqzYXSxeM88sJtjZnepLyPqO5M5Gt9YxfIss+8zvM2p3gecN b4T5+eCOJnluSaiKr//Eet7g+HOXTttExGLHuBJPoi5LW5nLV7/Rc73fndt1CSLpEg c9CJNrCPaSDliHRbA5LKsKP1rByXzcDhFmdLYeVK6hAcXLxRfmhyCeNGnR3qK6mvwA 5QQ+pSDhXk0TES5FPKR3tOzDU5WZKKaZMu8/xQjTC/tvWB+fvpGzxB/PK6UP7l7h0J Ve2uIj1NwIXmA== X-Authentication-Warning: segv.crash.com: Host 70-36-157-26.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [70.36.157.26] claimed to be [10.10.10.41] To: dmarc@ietf.org From: Steven M Jones Organization: Crash Computing Message-ID: <2baa0549-92f0-9e98-fd3e-5cb617b3019c@crash.com> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:35:31 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (segv.crash.com [72.52.75.15]); Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:35:34 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] ARC Interoperability testing Friday, Dec 16th X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:35:39 -0000 Do you have an ARC implementation? Have you tried testing it against somebody else's implementation? If not, you should join our testing event Friday of this week! No travel required, we'll be sending messages between implementations while on a conference bridge. Video optional. If you have an implementation of ARC in your product or service, contact me off-list. I'll add you to the list of interop participants, and you'll receive details for this and future testing events. Thanks, --Steve. From nobody Wed Dec 14 19:06:05 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B3D129458 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:06:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=crash.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yInhdpAtE_KM for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from segv.crash.com (segv.crash.com [IPv6:2001:470:1:1e9::4415]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07789129420 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.10.10.41] (70-36-157-26.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [70.36.157.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by segv.crash.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/cci-colo-1.6) with ESMTP id uBF35kek007699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:05:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from smj@crash.com) X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 segv.crash.com uBF35kek007699 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crash.com; s=201506-2k; t=1481771152; bh=Dzl04Jx4tn1wI1lRP610dY3ggQnCtVwRSSnxWAFJRsE=; h=To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=CZTCT0odUU59e31wq8skAyIDoG4U7k2ziyQFzKNTxyuw4fKsZWWT9W2ElOtYZSp9P 710C+pgiDM6pK9ud545d+0/e/hLlgXAtDm2ymqvr5jFB8mbVtTx/1xCfO0XNAPfgBp /Jf+qwp/PYg2C/6H93NVR1fxG8j0/ASX/o9+x1fbJb+wrfXqjFj834lVHBLRkPOskX yZidu1YL8iYWsq2zUJ480WqkJLzHzCj1Cnr3Vjn6vzgGHyeklmfk0hVp1n6ju8QMl+ alEa7EBAuoDWm3Btb5t0lo7IsgOXhDBbVVXirgU4ReXJO0MkEGSlxCTATc1k00eoY+ SuOd1t1cXziFA== X-Authentication-Warning: segv.crash.com: Host 70-36-157-26.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [70.36.157.26] claimed to be [10.10.10.41] To: dmarc@ietf.org From: Steven M Jones Organization: Crash Computing Message-ID: <2c72ab7a-8c8e-2cdf-3ed0-44de616928ce@crash.com> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:05:50 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (segv.crash.com [72.52.75.15]); Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:05:52 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Changes to ARC specification re: A-A-R header X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:06:04 -0000 An ARC implementer recently pointed out that the rationale for capturing the contents of the Authentication-Results: header in the ARC-Authentication-Results: header wasn't clear from reading the specification. So I'd like to propose some changes to the draft specification to address this point. Apologies if my method of suggesting/describing changes is out of order - redirects welcomed. Section 1 "Introduction" -- First paragraph, first sentence, change "non-compliant messages" to "handling messages that fail to authenticate." Split the existing first paragraph; make the last three sentences a separate paragraph, starting with "This specification defines..." Modify the second sentence of the new second paragraph to append, ", and preserve the contents of the Authentication-Results: header created by ARC-aware intermediaries." Replace the last paragraph of the section with the following: > Another goal is to capture and convey the contents of the > Authentication-Results (A-R) mechanism [RFC7601] as seen by > intermediaries in indirect mailflows. Normally A-R permits the results > of an email authentication evaluation process to be transmitted from > the evaluating agent (e.g. an MTA) to a consumer that makes use of the > information (e.g. a filtering mechanism or MUA). A-R is usually only > used this way within a given ADMD, but ARC can reliably convey the > contents of the A-R header that each ARC-aware intermediary generates > between ADMDs. The final message receiver may choose to use this > information from valid ARC chains - particularly the A-R contents > recorded by the first ARC-aware intermediary - in evaluating messages > that fail to authenticate through direct checks of protocols like > DKIM, DMARC, or SPF. > > For more detailed examples of when and how A-A-R contents might be > used by message receivers, please refer to [ARC-USAGE]. > Section 2.3 "Utility" -- Append the following to the first sentence: "..., including the authentication results observed by each ARC-aware intermediary." Section 4 "Overview" -- Append the following to the first sentence of the second paragraph: "... and any authentication results they evaluated when receiving the message.= " Section 5.1.3's first paragraph is a bit awkward. I'd like to propose the following replacement text for changes: > ARC-Authentication-Results (AAR) is a copy of the contents of the > Authentication-Results: header [RFC7601] as generated by the ADMD > creating this set of ARC headers. That is, it captures the > authentication results that the reporting ADMD observed when it > received the message from another ADMD.=20 I recommend striking the second paragraph (sentence) in this section about the "i=3D" tag -- the same exact text appears in the following 5.1.3.1 "`i' Tag Value" --Steve. From nobody Tue Dec 27 14:19:51 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietf.org Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE1A127077; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:19:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148287719018.14245.10945455255001709040.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:19:50 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-usage-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 22:19:50 -0000 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 of the IETF. Title : Recommended Usage of the Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Authors : Steven Jones John Rae-Grant Trent Adams Kurt Andersen Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-usage-01.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2016-12-27 Abstract: The Authentication Received Chain (ARC) provides a means to preserve email authentication results and verify the identity of email message handlers, each of which participates by inserting certain header fields before passing the message on. But the specification does not indicate how intermediaries and receivers should interpret or utilize ARC. This document will provide guidance in these areas. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-usage/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-usage-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-usage-01 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 nobody Thu Dec 29 15:15:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B96D1298A8 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:15:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9yrHLPhS8XYa for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:15:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x241.google.com (mail-lf0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 464F5129721 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:15:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf0-x241.google.com with SMTP id t196so16626053lff.3 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:15:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Mx32sBsx2gnfEA5SwpxALsnlFQCGa254Dra8JO6qWyU=; b=Ki0+KUXlDSGcWhUaoADemTQa/r6f0y6NY6qob3+qUHIVNL3mzUgP9yX8DVr0FdjawF lWpCzvd4AZI/QFKw36DtQsTlPSd1jvsn1WQidAYZ/97KyEU285PQ27NE6pT6AhejlYO8 OKwEdYNRKxZVGYxJ354f8DPjc2zD0sx3Zu58zjMtRZ09cVZSzkpJwO/lDYw7U5Hv0bRW OAikLoTt3iDy0ViuMB+28ZoL6SDDW6dSOsw9kR+jD5BV7QUrqUlMvRWnu4YDDFhYpJjQ joMUAgiOeoex93rOcBQCT3PMKT4W3fLPsjmE3XDDhMY72fkoWmojbs/e0MWwU4aaK7Vq nsog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Mx32sBsx2gnfEA5SwpxALsnlFQCGa254Dra8JO6qWyU=; b=r0DGQfPmVoB3Aq/pA40RUr02Sq7IkNzxBXOFPSAPqLNSJZ9KEwPyQlMceZ99AyzK12 gYt7mZlplfi3ULT+ptwydILscnOnBD4du3+0DSyKxJHZ2sWSjaVcNKcOTWLOe12yOQpE GWhMCK5Ul7Jfez9v1zCmhaMmrKtxd66yNma/U7omuZ2S5JYz4LwgaKokHedtn1W1fzc8 8+PiWc7+zsCUb5nTXx+mTvs+ZyHEelfKki02DJ0kyGizbyE2ds42zUo28yIxT0Hx0j33 6fLlhpdWdCoEKKuLxiT20UHjqSf/5z+SS1xUw3CSFc44PBWHCq//Ipfii2eN1ZAms7bE hEdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKt1mFbBFQE5G3NpTHqMfh2V+DY9Jabt1E2NZKxBZ1YIDJY2jkL26scuUl/eLkID95zKJYptQJ8hMq8eA== X-Received: by 10.46.8.17 with SMTP id 17mr17173998lji.72.1483053335453; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:15:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.22.84 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:15:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2baa0549-92f0-9e98-fd3e-5cb617b3019c@crash.com> References: <2baa0549-92f0-9e98-fd3e-5cb617b3019c@crash.com> From: Barry Leiba Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:15:34 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: pjx3Y-CQemrBcetVcJtDqvByGVI Message-ID: To: Steven M Jones Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC Interoperability testing Friday, Dec 16th X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:15:39 -0000 Steve, can you give us a brief report on how this went? Barry, chair On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Steven M Jones wrote: > Do you have an ARC implementation? Have you tried testing it against > somebody else's implementation? If not, you should join our testing > event Friday of this week! No travel required, we'll be sending messages > between implementations while on a conference bridge. Video optional. > > If you have an implementation of ARC in your product or service, contact > me off-list. I'll add you to the list of interop participants, and > you'll receive details for this and future testing events. > > Thanks, > --Steve. > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc From nobody Thu Dec 29 15:18:20 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1798F129510 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:18:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lxcK1U9IjFom for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:18:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAF21129472 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:18:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id t196so229079720lff.3 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:18:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/2aUpumwD2zFNawE6K9cw9tuw3GOMiy36CjKkIrHQDk=; b=paU6SMTiEAofl9RVMfbk466JEkcRqbulULcGIBWCpmi6FBPSFDtSSiRvPRSbP6D1Al B8HEF0opXuD7t7ec6PdxPEQKQ0u4uOBWblegUx+i8PQ4Ftfy9YHzo45IDsy9waMPeQhg w+nQGVQ4uushe5d7VQGhKyTFPcyYFk1LP8dtQvTMXxu+uv7tuqNuX7USPAso1E5EzgnY XAFkCp1ZiQR86NqsaI4qKQ+cjFDDhs684hxvfTO/xaqzBqM+vUgT1kY06UzgwzfMtkHF jjta/Bv/tft6x+zC5vmC3zRjE7EUCyb+fXCxQWrBPtoMPjAlCsWb0o/nBMvBiRO//nEO S91w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=/2aUpumwD2zFNawE6K9cw9tuw3GOMiy36CjKkIrHQDk=; b=mAS4gHDZ0LFe0x57K8f/UJgHy2bm5a1swdNvvQ/V0xi6ya/QGZQwpiZ11t+FS/NzLE KXXd9AZBWJS0HtFyAIhaFlRuOMutHIv8mxqNk4Q2uwkrBgoEPk8EAibEksnXOqN7qjyi hzxFm2l58ODuHvrgH2ZnOxEdb+gqv+9TaLuXJub53yOFn9N/eSERFobrB62mmlWDRVFQ 1F3MefPajthGuJxRXZzKa5FBWsV3HtwaE1XM9d8y0bN9jtUxh6+wcuzlLxMfK/Q3OpUN M3t5Nq6xw4eNi+FoXW4eHnS1R50RUdkA4IryRR/z2KtvZ+ukGRsa8nCWf9ao5+5WiZKC cHyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIFvWu+rHK8VDeUf/5r1tEzyWQBZTgokYRcP7q2vlwhHHVdxbLI9ZZn9CcXzEdx8FLeRHVRQqjVy3K/6A== X-Received: by 10.25.67.12 with SMTP id q12mr16399008lfa.139.1483053496933; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:18:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.22.84 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:18:16 -0800 (PST) From: Barry Leiba Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:18:16 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vU7iMhkKKXPrrG_lne02gT0y2I4 Message-ID: To: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Prodding for reviews... and planning NOT to have a meeting in Chicago X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:18:20 -0000 We've had an updated draft for more than three weeks now, with no comments. It's a bad time of year, true, but the chairs are going to expect some activity soon, or we might have to consider this working group moribund. I plan to say that this working group is NOT going to meet in Chicago. I'll reconsider that if we actually get some activity here and things show up that might actually go on a working group session agenda. Barry, chair From nobody Thu Dec 29 18:27:10 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2B61298AF for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:27:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=crash.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qZEUqpyWb_3X for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:27:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from segv.crash.com (segv.crash.com [IPv6:2001:470:1:1e9::4415]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCC18129500 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:27:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.10.10.41] (70-36-157-26.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [70.36.157.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by segv.crash.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/cci-colo-1.6) with ESMTP id uBU2QqO2042200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:27:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from smj@crash.com) X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 segv.crash.com uBU2QqO2042200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crash.com; s=201506-2k; t=1483064822; bh=Pgvio7659fZceihZXcphu0HHYC5cgzLcCwHf7DN2YUw=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ORLpU0wiuXXSwMS0yaLGt89eeE9Qvj642BAQ8nIoe6aZpcDCKhYpQDv0NzNn2byO9 o0CNkmcWS0ix/gWfXc3dyhT03qooWvu6Y94gJKSQPQ15tzrnO1Mh9caNS8iWmXY1cb FtbsYDUiE4hNnGToi+vSrjKG8NHeLBGVwtK0IPO0xASxMvoKCwZzEgbVwamryqdCt/ v5OkJpVFTJj11tjEobW8fq6C577ya4g10AMVyh7RATITo1Ze062aaGAQj9udIKjVGI jUl6n8mfT/NpVMFq1lGlVGvtFGL8k20YL9NKQejK9s5PtvXhHbngelI59pFaZ4DYEp JnZzg3aGUCQ2w== X-Authentication-Warning: segv.crash.com: Host 70-36-157-26.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [70.36.157.26] claimed to be [10.10.10.41] To: Barry Leiba References: <2baa0549-92f0-9e98-fd3e-5cb617b3019c@crash.com> From: Steven M Jones Organization: Crash Computing Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:26:56 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (segv.crash.com [72.52.75.15]); Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:27:02 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC Interoperability testing Friday, Dec 16th X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 02:27:09 -0000 On 12/29/2016 15:15, Barry Leiba wrote: > Steve, can you give us a brief report on how this went? A very brief report, yes - because it turned out that three of four implementations would have no representatives available at that time, so the testing did not in fact happen. My apologies for not reporting that at the time, but I was busy coming down with the flu. Speaking for myself, I didn't think it would take this long to pull the implementations together - which is unfair given that I'm not writing one... We had originally thought to collect a test corpus as an output of the live test sessions, because we thought this would all be pretty easy. But while some sample messages were shared from session to session, nobody produced a comprehensive set as implementations were found to be incomplete, or buggy, etc.. In the most recent conversation I had with Murray Kucherawy, around the 14th, we discussed just picking an implementation and producing such a corpus. Publish the keys, the input and output messages, and maybe the intermediate stages like canonicalized hashes, and allow the various implementers to run that against their code off-line. They could then take a stab at determining if there was a bug (and on which side), or a vague point in the spec, without having to coordinate schedules. Where is said corpus? See previous comment about flu, and the holidays. That's the current status. Thanks for reminding me about this open work item. --Steve. From nobody Fri Dec 30 07:49:21 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4EF21294A9 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 07:49:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Emf7DTytNPeI for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 07:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com (mail-oi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 734891294A4 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 07:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-x233.google.com with SMTP id v84so426050606oie.3 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 07:49:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MTaAgnBk5D1UsyosvfhMkKZLf6SIGrodn4pRHP389Ko=; b=J0NqqvGw6PX5uuuaYTJQAme9L3jpsiFeHewkE2gABpxiZ27fiiJItsGny8dkv6uUoO npHmZB684m9LkHBouiBi6rQVc9q8otlYq/eS7zkvtoFhQkXx+n927+a97eQIKoXhTLzb mauor2ZybNmIedemonmgJRTGVKsESt9hdjseQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MTaAgnBk5D1UsyosvfhMkKZLf6SIGrodn4pRHP389Ko=; b=koNvwaQP5uPxfbXBi5aP+HdScECYEYORRtQuEDEK8d0wPTPjuWjdiypTaVrrLxhksk zNeOavjPnwkbebf55a31sgwkob7yqju3GD6VSlSrIbB8yGBCzuzaWuDTCo0mJ2pIkYG2 JdbWCXN6Pb05n+Z65G6tiPb2WkXjuaEYXc1eHaUPyAJ+8Qxt5+vj/zQtOOLC/CjBJOvu /ak2E+VGOMb0r3g47nJWOb2z1z2doGFPrnuJvPf48TAtYDLlyZBrECx5yEBT3lUHzZrU MqRyAiAt9/fuuiIQl4gWj2TkfJp6v0w3ymygNe/Zefo+odSlDXuOlkDuXf8U2TY6HzBW CAOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIgvDTV8UJvQ86LP2QMaMOVkzzEd7pxA9xDDKkB1nGbwC2zOVhu/TAAT6WWMOHHACj//E5w7SZ225lESA== X-Received: by 10.202.53.2 with SMTP id c2mr23305651oia.80.1483112958709; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 07:49:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.74.136 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 07:49:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Kurt Andersen Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 07:49:18 -0800 Message-ID: To: Barry Leiba Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d402610e6b30544e22538 Archived-At: Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Prodding for reviews... and planning NOT to have a meeting in Chicago X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:49:20 -0000 --001a113d402610e6b30544e22538 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > We've had an updated draft for more than three weeks now, with no > comments. > Most of the work has been proceeding off-list with work toward an interop (that failed to happen on 12/16), ongoing development on the OpenARC package, release of the beta on MailerQ, installations for production usage at AOL and GMail. The ARC-enabled dkimpy package is available though Scott has expressed a desire to refactor some of the code. As far as we are aware, there are an number of other implementations which are waiting on a functional OpenARC package. As to open work on the spec: 1) Murray had promised some ideas for restructuring the draft to make it more understandable, but I haven't received them yet. 2) There have been some questions begging additional clarity on the relationship between the Authentication-Results header and the ARC-Authentication-Results headers which I have not yet put into prose. As to other work: There are also two sessions planned for the agenda at M3AAWG (Feb 20-23 in San Francisco) (I realize that is not an open venue, but, so far, the active participants on the spec and implementations are in both groups). We should have updates regarding implementation status after those meetings. I plan to say that this working group is NOT going to meet in Chicago. > That seems reasonable. I don't know of anything that needs F2F time right now. --Kurt --001a113d402610e6b30544e22538 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, Dec 29, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
We've had an upda= ted draft for more than three weeks now, with no
comments.=C2=A0

Most of the work has be= en proceeding off-list with work toward an interop (that failed to happen o= n 12/16), ongoing development on the OpenARC package, release of the beta o= n MailerQ, installations for production usage at AOL and GMail. The ARC-ena= bled dkimpy package is available though Scott has expressed a desire to ref= actor some of the code. As far as we are aware, there are an number of othe= r implementations which are waiting on a functional OpenARC package.
<= div>=C2=A0


I plan to say th= at this working group is NOT going to meet in Chicago.


--001a113d402610e6b30544e22538--