On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> > wrote: > >> Working group: >> Have all of you reviewed the ARC documents? Does the dearth of >> discussion of them mean they're close to ready? >> > > I've been working on an open source implementation. It consists largely > of re-purposed code pulled from my open source DKIM stuff. There's some > final plumbing I need to connect before it will be releasable. I think the > ARC protocol, since it borrows so heavily from DKIM concepts, actually ends > up being less complex than it appears on paper. > Most of the recent work has been in regard to coordinating and testing the four (4) known implementations of the ARC spec (Google, AOL, dkimpy, OpenARC). They are each in various stages of completion/readiness for production. There's at least one issue about the document that needs addressing, which > I believe has been raised already in some other context: The prefixing of > an instance number to the ARC-Authentication-Results field being described > only in prose leaves the proper syntax ambiguously defined. > Yes, known issue. I plan to have an update that clarifies this issue and addresses a few nits submitted before the end of this week (Oct 21). > More generally, I think the document needs quite a bit of polish. The > core material seems to be there but I've got some qualms with its > organization, flow, etc. This may also be contributing to a false veneer > of complexity. When I'm done the first round of coding, I'll route some > energy toward development of the document with the authors if they're > amenable. > Would be very happy to have any thoughts and input on making the document more understandable and approachable. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
