Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft-10 Section 10 - Algorithm Rotation - can we address separately?

On 12/29/2017 10:36 AM, John R Levine wrote: I still don't understand why we need to say more than DKIM did on this topic. DKIM doesn't have a chain of signatures.  With DKIM, a signature is either valid or not, and you can ignore the ones you don't understand. ARC has a chain of ARC seals,

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft-10 Section 10 - Algorithm Rotation - can we address separately?

I’ll take a stab at proposing some language in a separate document. On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:36 John R Levine wrote: > > I still don't understand why we need to say more than DKIM did on this > > topic. > > DKIM doesn't have a chain of signatures. With DKIM, a signature is

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft-10 Section 10 - Algorithm Rotation - can we address separately?

I still don't understand why we need to say more than DKIM did on this topic. DKIM doesn't have a chain of signatures. With DKIM, a signature is either valid or not, and you can ignore the ones you don't understand. ARC has a chain of ARC seals, and the current document says there's only

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft-10 Section 10 - Algorithm Rotation - can we address separately?

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 7:57 PM, John Levine wrote: > In article

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft: Call for ARC Implementations to be included

The second bullet on 14.4 can go. The third one can go once a new version of OpenDMARC is out, which can happen in early January. On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Seth Blank wrote: > The Implementation Status section of the draft ( >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft-10 Security Considerations - questions and request

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Seth Blank wrote: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-13 > > Beyond my notes below, the Security Considerations section feels weak, and > like it should at least inherit DKIM's security considerations. >