IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC ARC-16 concern on Section 5.1.2 - cv=fail should sign greedily

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Tue, 07 August 2018 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFB23130FFF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 08:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.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 YJt11ZaQ1pFZ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 08:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (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 1784D130F6F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 08:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id p10-v6so13814179ljg.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Aug 2018 08:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=o2kDc28uq90bMkq/lIi1GFcn6vaYmvGFAp/f8JBdoBs=; b=a/VtefDnZzpJFHM6RlTBFW5neAleMAubtrSLVu38eBr+N+au4eWpfnFRkDmtvCaZKj zvO6NrC3NIL39/Vu6hkqRiuUDV4Xzz8VUlpFwbjJWIz94u/vM1CJzLs8FkFZdMltK9Ms yFLPqfh5dBbgcT5zvjFEFny7XzPy9q6BRBBAM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=o2kDc28uq90bMkq/lIi1GFcn6vaYmvGFAp/f8JBdoBs=; b=nbE3ykiTl4wBGtTq8B1tbNSYZrJU+L1utZjBXkanD1Y8DiK2T41yaKIoCbyCQrmEmM EOzT4CONnRT6cy4dvrlhPSsFWNINbp+Nhaatvm/km0FXlXhFpNZeUhZAh0z5t7vEOQot ewlNfOBle75t35sF1WrpnaQqlBn1q+wB28VbYTOPYTQpNLSW7+P/etHE7BwWVton5FU9 vy/1wZ0zzW82xfCkOJIPdhurXnOmaDiksQE2IGMVOlqjb6jAr4GQlYrPkGWXzyS2+OYf uapDg5qAlsy4aAUKiHTPtTOXeOiDSRmqhKCE651QeUxLGgrWHYJZHWM3Rh17iPZGnDiY JMEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHjzYDtvdtSU8SpVqK/LYw44Yg2KrCcz9fIvza+T14c5Yt4fXuQ 4wMawLxUery0/IN1M0S5pSqarQifAl/Zu+K4xDclGw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpetNDHRgwny5Ky700Gxrgy1rY1/4UXZcF7VemUBMccwlY+Sle5p3cFFnKPr+wvhTSSUy4TE+BY2GehN7rmytq0=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9c0f:: with SMTP id s15-v6mr11190894lji.97.1533656278165; Tue, 07 Aug 2018 08:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: kurta@drkurt.com
Received: by 2002:a19:5943:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 08:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6sgtcAHGt10GQ85PvhYvEZfv1K1SqiFLe7ozWeZ5+Y30A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD2i3WNSe+of7U8fdTnmUeU3sthUbpEVgdYHT9J6BgLxoeOL3w@mail.gmail.com> <20180730221726.713CE200316625@ary.qy> <CAD2i3WMvCugRm4KZeLx3PFb6f_pKR3rs4mnH2FZO4_X7ZA7GHA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1807302025420.60501@ary.qy> <CABa8R6sWSu9Q+mozxzaVGab3PE2zxqVmt4L6FERSLC1oDTh1oA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1808031352460.29088@ary.qy> <CABa8R6u_09D9BNiq3fXDXjPVfFeZxHtRa0NyLamKyj033xO72A@mail.gmail.com> <CAD2i3WNJdQ95drzue17UdKEb_6qkN7DuB7WdMbORTSjWGgwJZA@mail.gmail.com> <CABa8R6sgtcAHGt10GQ85PvhYvEZfv1K1SqiFLe7ozWeZ5+Y30A@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 08:37:57 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: UrE48jvBY6zb7b5ddoKBAN7DGpw
Message-ID: <CABuGu1rmxMWhUQvzf=uyNVYSb1zGCgWtiak5+yPKaXGWPV4XUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brandon Long <blong=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aafef80572da2dd3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/CkyStrT1Lt6p7I5EogM0aIbWvtc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC ARC-16 concern on Section 5.1.2 - cv=fail should sign greedily
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:38:02 -0000

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Brandon Long <
blong=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>
> Do we actually have consensus on what to do, though?
>
> The current proposal seems pretty bad, sign one or all depending on vague
> things that might be different per impl.
>

It does not seem to me like we have consensus. Can we pick one option for
this experimental phase and re-evaluate afterward? For the sake of
non-ambiguity, I'd suggest the "sign one" approach. During the experiment
we can see how often it has to be invoked and request people to examine
those cases for further evaluation.

--Kurt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email