Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 02:04:50 PM John Levine wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
> >Is this milestone really done?  The protocol document references
> >draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi, which isn't done yet.  Doesn't it need to be
> >done too before this gets checked off (there is no separate milestone for
> >multi).
> 
> I gather there are practical issues: we don't see any way to do
> algorithm rotation in a way that is backward compatible with existing
> implemntations, and we'd like to publish something that matches the
> running code.

I think -18 of the protocol document does that reasonably well.  

I reviewed dkimpy with a view towards updating it from roughly -08 to -18 and 
it didn't need a lot of changes.  I did skip oldest-pass and related stuff 
since, per my last call comment, it seems superfluous as well as not extending 
the API to include passing in the connect IP address to include that, but 
there's no interoperability issue there.  Dkimpy 0.9.0 should interoperate 
with other -18 implementations.

Whether we leave this marked done and add a new one for multi or re-open this 
one, I don't care.  We ought to have some kind of milestone open against the 
residual work though.

Scott K