Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alternative draft text for draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol

2017-05-31 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
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

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alternative draft text for draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol

2017-05-31 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
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

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alternative draft text for draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol

2017-05-31 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
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

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alternative draft text for draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol

2017-05-10 Thread Brandon Long
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

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alternative draft text for draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol

2017-05-09 Thread Seth Blank
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

[dmarc-ietf] Alternative draft text for draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol

2017-05-04 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
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