IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 11 August 2018 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 15B1F130FFC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_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 (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 a9lS0raR15Rc for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (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 C1AB113110F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id p10-v6so9767476ljg.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:20:09 -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=D6K/3BtNX53A9Xq/DdPJVGxPh2Rz/w+eYT1bq++tu5A=; b=jg2NyQbIATlqB9guQ8SVNRn0KvmO/FYODLlWXSsy4gowxhz6Z3wZrl8Uh5FGbPjGyU T9yteqpm/DSBkxf3DNwX5zeHimQrdSmsdFGAZeEuP5iVft6jEhlI4+gkGTQKvOAt8tLU NHMJONeonBw9yzKUfTnrlO+1w0CRFU78KUl1NEQg4caXdZMdZArv7lc7KZx9ey73EtrR 0/kv2FK6tjys9loirc337x0TqpsL5OITatkqlopOaqUJnSfTB7RDORSJOyVhODBqWnJf aAdJLbzXn5xuAZyF6LZqNU+Yjps+YZMMpjXTxmNQFTrFNhZa/2wl8kUsIUEfGpkE8FfH cTbQ==
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=D6K/3BtNX53A9Xq/DdPJVGxPh2Rz/w+eYT1bq++tu5A=; b=P+1V3NlWxPAaGqw1DPh/7QDi80SSQK5K0pR+awmuNrbXXPRGHkZihMND6ueBLWYrft AEgeitPMjs2fje4Q9rUvLbdpi9zN9ihzk/RQ8xSYJ+b9ta71Pt+60DbowYneO/+GX0IT Dbw5HBSq7RyzpzakNTzjWoF+oqOzKiK9WJm1/qUqZ5dRU54V4OL9RctM7TY7xUyXpanx 2MizBHjz3dTO85LXP3Q9qIvF8l+tl+iJceMY+HnE0fiynyk5h5KaQsH+QS8WroY90AFH oSEkrhk8E787EdZ3mx+wfYIkL7zHRaIRmDee9NFUtVGDMAzYWq/NXy/dS1XN09eTZ5Nx jrgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlE8X45jyzc4EFkRa9UnfMqqc2u/7dFn75dwWWeayIRC+1pcU1k0 o1AGU6nelAGeX9rEI3iVy4/Oi+q9itZqMwIX9JT7DgFj
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPwSFhMjqgx1RO7IIUfDgIQGxgrh2Id6d+2Jj6GI1yxWXWoH9mtPE4g8w6ZjliLJ04R1hgvPDsiPCJOniktHulY=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:1609:: with SMTP id w9-v6mr7909860ljd.120.1534022407981; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a2e:3a13:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1rmxMWhUQvzf=uyNVYSb1zGCgWtiak5+yPKaXGWPV4XUg@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> <CABuGu1rmxMWhUQvzf=uyNVYSb1zGCgWtiak5+yPKaXGWPV4XUg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 21:20:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbjpMH30hD8xKnAgT6kJ9wmN9hm3gwnRGmiqTOxKLiHDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Cc: Brandon Long <blong=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b48f0305732f6c0e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/G9904VZ2EpWM0YtnapLJttOOR2s>
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: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 21:20:20 -0000

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

"Sign one" (I think you mean "seal one") remains ambiguous to me, because
as Seth said, once I see "cv=fail", I don't care about anything else.  Now
I have a seal nobody cares about, which means the sealer shouldn't be
bothered with generating it, irrespective of what gets fed to the hash.

Can we clear that part up?

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email