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