Sections 4.7 and 4.8 from my proposal ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/yl1HWdNbmQR1wHlCvG3eRl9ph5E) were not moved into the protocol elements section of the latest draft ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-4)
I spoke with Kurt, and this appears to have been an oversight. To be clear about the protocol elements section, I've cribbed it from DKIM and proposed it to: a) provide context for the entire ARC Chain b) define protocol components that are not specific to only sealing or validating the chain As such, I believe both the concept of chain validation status and the ordering of hops belong in protocol elements. This also opens the question of where Section 8 ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-8) belongs. This section now feels more like a kitchen sink and implementation guidance. I would suggest: 8.1 be stricken as it's a normative modification of DKIM, or replaced with language to the effect of "ARC MUST be the last signer of the message; otherwise it cannot be validated on receipt." which can go in signer actions 8.2 should be moved to protocol elements 8.3 to signer actions 8.4 to verifier actions 8.5 should be stricken (this is bad advice that could result in backscatter, and I'm unsure where it came from, I can find no working group conversation around this)
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
