On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Gene Shuman wrote:
> I've taken a look at the proposed draft and have a few notes as well.
>
> 4. The currently specified limits on i= are not included MUST >10, SHOULD
> > 50, etc
>
50 seems oddly high. I think sendmail out-of-the-box limits
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> In 5.1 defining the AMS, you say that it should cover DKIM-Signature and
> AuthRes headers. In particular, AuthRes headers are expected to be removed
> by ADMDs, especially if the message transits the same ADMD multiple
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> Looping back about this.
>
> Currently openarc only supports relaxed canonicalization for the ARC
> Message Signature.
>
> On closer inspection, https://tools.ietf.org/html/dr
> aft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-03#section-5.1.2
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Gene Shuman wrote:
> I've taken a look at the proposed draft and have a few notes as well.
>
> 4. The currently specified limits on i= are not included MUST >10, SHOULD
> > 50, etc
>
> 5.1 - In the current draft, it's mandated that AMS must use
I've got two follow ups from Gene's notes on the proposed draft:
1. I am also confused by section 5.2, specifically the penultimate sentence
in the section. I think - but am not certain - that I understand what is
meant. I've suggested new language below to clarify.
Original:
"Of particular
Colleagues,
As I progress (slowly, alas) toward completing my sample implementation of
OpenARC, I've found myself taking a lot of notes about the current draft.
This has helped me make progress; in some cases it became things I posted
to the list, and in others it was just to help or confirm my