IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com> Fri, 03 August 2018 23:14 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@sethblank.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 52D2A130E6B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 16:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 PJAsCt4iJl46 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 16:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22b.google.com (mail-oi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) (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 AF09B130DD3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 16:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id n21-v6so12703662oig.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Aug 2018 16:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3D1FY51xx5NGooawGyjXlihA1GO4sBK1rHRBcN+9jJs=; b=Up/cBVOAO33A0aZ3JgeaPsq0bZByNFkSXEHjSMOXiRr9j8G2yguG4NjJfkQz/2Rf0v 6BDomSJGAM7DZtbnv32iyvHrDSFhmyqQG7nkcI93sYibQRKsYFTeJIDJJ3YdqBHm7iRj Hu0nqBXv4ELJKoMvilP5FhjoGOAOoBe6F6nTO+gSKyIhMWL8VIxibdsUKh0YnHx6E1lG QU35NX3kaLcRBmYpXSwW++xASMzlQXKBO5jrqdjNTT88MWdzyjJgjbTu2g2ZsSLXpltB M59EvH7wW4qSk6jrFdv4ItIMRviUyaCHWN5JbaAyLKF+tlNHmEIfWK5Yzsf2hbp0Iehh JAIA==
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; bh=3D1FY51xx5NGooawGyjXlihA1GO4sBK1rHRBcN+9jJs=; b=lYjluxJIuP4WkdXOMHlpfVCYPwmsa8ibwYvk7ZkGZ1/P5DR9wZLV7eaqcZDHF0TrmF 88dvgMN3qlzyVkn+/5ogl4V9ArMIOTd1rerb+fyhcgYHwJ52Q64p9DoG5Ja/9TlMSfXm 9JdG7BBroBEohaBrEsSH92JC7vIj1FGQW88FHmIiZgxDrN3fsVFljCHTqio2oVRmLdQ6 NPhOTQNaSGdUBJjLY/YdHhSnBQM7w6Mg5cvotiipVSzS9rrZaJE0iS6oFtL8YkzxdmZM +zqOtysEMF7bvIRtYMWySfuiDvo9RUvL2sHy1GHDGrg5PgIWEUSGX73hu5C7RoA8PTqR N/Mg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFMDWPC92FqICcxeOLF0xruqS98G9eTQGtZ3G0GCaWrUudvgek3 8hBqobB1suL4JhrjMNeFpZm2d0kPVbruRbtroh1Z1Ofh
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPwDHyyspYVntcUMl3inU16q6w342SVzb9ybd76MH/iCX4QZr/ctw7ETPYS1fbTh66FMFCIzUiACyyBI3TiKxkU=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:d9c5:: with SMTP id q188-v6mr4889534oig.239.1533338048574; Fri, 03 Aug 2018 16:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a9d:2646:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 16:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6u_09D9BNiq3fXDXjPVfFeZxHtRa0NyLamKyj033xO72A@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>
From: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 16:13:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD2i3WNJdQ95drzue17UdKEb_6qkN7DuB7WdMbORTSjWGgwJZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b4d7200572901543"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Eng5xpooUXmpCZUoU6ZrpA1D54k>
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: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 23:14:11 -0000

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Brandon Long <
blong=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Currently, we don't do anything with failed chains short of keeping
> stats.  Everything we've used the chain for so far has been from passing
> chains.
>

Especially as an Experiment, I think it's important to sign even failing
chains, especially for the reasons I've already enumerated. Otherwise, the
above scenario - only data from passing chains is usable - is the only
possible scenario. This seems myopic, especially when we don't yet know
what the real world landscape will look like.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email