IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04: (with COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 24 October 2017 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180961394F2 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EF8ILwjpCBBk for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 910941390EE for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id k123so28018596qke.3 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4dF173C5OZYCJjs5sSgcG9lfEgLGnVsh/1Wmqt7TpZA=; b=QUOtMFNNVSH6GKtpgEx2+IpBV5GBub6+/S030mUcvCevuwbrfgfnsuV/hGhhqB5n9h QuOtzwR2jjv/S6KT1d2r5Z2lBzng9DbADdr/iGnXdqliKIprGAmJ7srrmNq39VMlFIMl rzIkQzNiRkegjjEjMqpXiTP77isja36gu6UpCM6MFf6DCL/iW3ITsfdLWcPIFyB+nRGp wwHaZnf6+gSBcCmtDnk2Jp77YptfxwIa4ZIEDEt8V0mV7VKOFsDuiOqljkMHf3CvfIkI 4s8nxEOaD3D3LoZswMgA4WWYttLZ7zuggzJu5NaNBc+7Ingzrk9Pp22z9Fy7bfPTzt9s DMfg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4dF173C5OZYCJjs5sSgcG9lfEgLGnVsh/1Wmqt7TpZA=; b=U4DBPkLKmsyE+4lzmvSC/KyeMXa3nnB3E95ZkXtTqv9H1/FkEzwtX8G2fczBr1haBr sezyWl/OptgnvwpumlyZQ7YC7M2zwCBrDOeNe+GiY1xP+baV+xu1tujNY4pxBllY+X5/ qQY8RAcv7kE8ScEpTraTXAqbO1SrHRbXl1p/gDTpdzOdsp83PAL7IPuB+lP6dwlcbQ/h E2hYALoV//oa3s4yAFrhCIzCCwPotzBxGjSrL0+dVRhRGVLEwuBeZ3SiACqz7GdEZj8s a74Scx9IEoc5/mTCQ+GG32LHKTreGUt09ykHbxVR0GGavZuzVbOs84mej7neTylDbRvy EJvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVBEkD9D+0MWg5Ui6bDp4E+Lys1aAn88z9bScelSSBdUlXKW1KJ uD1ZZnpdFemCtcY8J7yf2SFcksRlM3fD0U3N7nMdHA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+R4YXccyOmHnChRz98QNfzJ24+4KG46IAwrL9icTOaATMHskm9qEZRmQgk1W6DFbtakvrNz3Pvs7AzRiy6aQkY=
X-Received: by 10.55.108.68 with SMTP id h65mr25996702qkc.13.1508878123591; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.40.115 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfPz5RNEjXGT8Ej7Xgq5BRRbNPjYWpvQf0AUxE8FxV4waQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <150649085207.24995.1867894975380491185.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwYiuq3Pt80pkQc5RNr8VV4pAObkPCMYp1NweoEggii+tQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXsHt-jEyCvoqXfrWWoQ3-XbwRKPfrFR0WfG1rxQnjrsA@mail.gmail.com> <2E80204C-37D7-4624-BD23-573C386D7899@kitterman.com> <CAL0qLwbXdwKSnhcjr0raVo1Sh+sRzDypLxzHc1swThkBAY8WFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbvRhDqE5o6dXypw-jC71vwdrUJvcmBRRq_64QQw5A9pA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfPz5RNEjXGT8Ej7Xgq5BRRbNPjYWpvQf0AUxE8FxV4waQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:48:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYfg=oh_c4cmVnUxk+BFO0FbjgzANJaX9SjBmQLXHNpww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Cc: dcrup@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114feeb690ee86055c5110d7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/1n8Ll6hJ1HD3CXNpXTCpJMsUGpA>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dcrup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DKIM Crypto Update <dcrup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrup/>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:48:46 -0000

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> In fact I would claim that by the definitions in Section 2.7.1 of
>> RFC7601, "policy" is the only option.
>>
>
> I wanted to strongly argue for "fail" over "policy" here - but I concur
> that within the confines of the current definition of fail in 7601,
> "policy" is the only option that fits.
>
>    fail:  The message was signed and the signature or signatures were
>       acceptable to the ADMD, but they failed the verification test(s).
>

What about "permerror"?

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email