Formerly, On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Seth Blank
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
>> The google implementation pre-dates cv=invalid, and when I went to
>> implement it, I couldn't find a good reason to do so, nor a great
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Gene Shuman wrote:
> Yeah, we certainly shouldn't be restarting the chain, and I (& I think
> most everyone else) concur that when it's invalid, the end. However I also
> don't think we should be keeping everything as fail, as invalid is
Yeah, we certainly shouldn't be restarting the chain, and I (& I think most
everyone else) concur that when it's invalid, the end. However I also don't
think we should be keeping everything as fail, as invalid is pretty
sematically different. And there is a clear line. cv=invalid if and only
if
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> The google implementation pre-dates cv=invalid, and when I went to
> implement it, I couldn't find a good reason to do so, nor a great
> bright-line rule for how to differentiate the two.
>
> I don't see the point of trying
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
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
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Gene Shuman wrote:
> Starting a new thread, as this is probably *the* major blocker wrt
> OpenARC. . .
>
Taking your two questions in reversed order:
. . .what *precisely* constitutes an invalid chain vs a failing one? I had
> previously