Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents
On Monday, October 17, 2016 07:18:47 PM John Levine wrote: > >Most of the recent work has been in regard to coordinating and testing the > >four (4) known implementations of the ARC spec (Google, AOL, dkimpy, > >OpenARC). They are each in various stages of completion/readiness for > >production. > > Any chance we could get a peek at dkimpy or OpenARC? We understand that > they're beta software. I've not had much more time to work on dkimpy and I doubt I will for the next several weeks, so I decided to go ahead and push the work in progress to the public repository [1]. It passes the provided tests in python2.7 and has less code duplication than the original submission, but still isn't where I want it to be. There is a bytes/string problem that makes it not work in python3. That needs to be fixed before I do a release. If anyone's interested in working on it, I'm definitely open to submissions. Scott K [1] https://code.launchpad.net/~dkimpy-hackers/dkimpy/trunk ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents
On Monday, October 17, 2016 07:18:47 PM John Levine wrote: > >Most of the recent work has been in regard to coordinating and testing the > >four (4) known implementations of the ARC spec (Google, AOL, dkimpy, > >OpenARC). They are each in various stages of completion/readiness for > >production. > > Any chance we could get a peek at dkimpy or OpenARC? We understand that > they're beta software. I have started working on incorporating the patch that Brandon Long (Google) provided for dkimpy. In order to incorporate it in a way that is maintainable and provides a stable API, it needs considerable rework (the actual ARC signing part seems to work fine). I would prefer to keep in private until I'm done with the rework so that what people see is close to or the final API. I don't think it'll take that long to do. Additionally, the exact patch that was provided will be in the VCS history, so people can look at that too if they want. Scott K ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents
>Most of the recent work has been in regard to coordinating and testing the >four (4) known implementations of the ARC spec (Google, AOL, dkimpy, >OpenARC). They are each in various stages of completion/readiness for >production. Any chance we could get a peek at dkimpy or OpenARC? We understand that they're beta software. R's, John ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Barry Leiba > wrote: > >> Working group: >> Have all of you reviewed the ARC documents? Does the dearth of >> discussion of them mean they're close to ready? >> > > I've been working on an open source implementation. It consists largely > of re-purposed code pulled from my open source DKIM stuff. There's some > final plumbing I need to connect before it will be releasable. I think the > ARC protocol, since it borrows so heavily from DKIM concepts, actually ends > up being less complex than it appears on paper. > Most of the recent work has been in regard to coordinating and testing the four (4) known implementations of the ARC spec (Google, AOL, dkimpy, OpenARC). They are each in various stages of completion/readiness for production. There's at least one issue about the document that needs addressing, which > I believe has been raised already in some other context: The prefixing of > an instance number to the ARC-Authentication-Results field being described > only in prose leaves the proper syntax ambiguously defined. > Yes, known issue. I plan to have an update that clarifies this issue and addresses a few nits submitted before the end of this week (Oct 21). > More generally, I think the document needs quite a bit of polish. The > core material seems to be there but I've got some qualms with its > organization, flow, etc. This may also be contributing to a false veneer > of complexity. When I'm done the first round of coding, I'll route some > energy toward development of the document with the authors if they're > amenable. > Would be very happy to have any thoughts and input on making the document more understandable and approachable. --Kurt ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents
> More generally, I think the document needs quite a bit of polish. The core > material seems to be there but I've got some qualms with its organization, > flow, etc. This may also be contributing to a false veneer of complexity. > When I'm done the first round of coding, I'll route some energy toward > development of the document with the authors if they're amenable. The chairs would greatly appreciate that, Murray... please to, and we know that Kurt's a delight to work with. Barry ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Working group: > Have all of you reviewed the ARC documents? Does the dearth of > discussion of them mean they're close to ready? > I've been working on an open source implementation. It consists largely of re-purposed code pulled from my open source DKIM stuff. There's some final plumbing I need to connect before it will be releasable. I think the ARC protocol, since it borrows so heavily from DKIM concepts, actually ends up being less complex than it appears on paper. There's at least one issue about the document that needs addressing, which I believe has been raised already in some other context: The prefixing of an instance number to the ARC-Authentication-Results field being described only in prose leaves the proper syntax ambiguously defined. More generally, I think the document needs quite a bit of polish. The core material seems to be there but I've got some qualms with its organization, flow, etc. This may also be contributing to a false veneer of complexity. When I'm done the first round of coding, I'll route some energy toward development of the document with the authors if they're amenable. -MSK ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents
I wasn't too excited about this ARC work. Appeared to too complex, overkill to implement, required too much code change, hence lack of interest. stop reading long ago. FWIW, I'm still waiting for a DMARC "proposal standard" work effort so we can get clean up the protocol, possibly get "Optional Policy Protocols" well described into it, with hopefully reintroducing some sponsored ADSP/ATPS or like plug and plug DNS policy work. ARC can also be added to the third party signer solutions list. -- HLS On 10/5/2016 10:35 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: We haven't had much discussion of the ARC documents recently, so... Kurt, what's the status of the documents? Do you have an issues list? Do you have material for updated drafts? Is there discussion you want to start or follow up on? Working group: Have all of you reviewed the ARC documents? Does the dearth of discussion of them mean they're close to ready? Barry, DMARC WG chair ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
