IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Sat, 11 August 2018 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@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 DA6F713107A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:31:57 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 gca0AaUtKLJe for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x531.google.com (mail-pg1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) (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 1E3BE131010 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x531.google.com with SMTP id x5-v6so5876642pgp.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NIPd0jt/+DKCIWK/d4izi8HMY7z9JuliUbPf22CoyvM=; b=g9eq2nBqEUyCMV+HtYQOwFk1EEfVZtxO6xapUkY4xXN/MWLQcGGrJ61I1Di66UkDwi NvIPV/2H7IcQhQuYtytnlfDqxVSnvW0lyYdRJP2tEvor3kcruwMp0nTrF2bTOfqJRYmn zoniwI+YPnPqHtM4benRfsl7yELvHJXcPUYeZPjV+SsgGBUANwOnDbzg13lf2XkXLtbY Cr1cdx4Bwu3uwfIEUIDNp694Ddv3rkuwCVPY76ulL8+8i8klcduRKRg0jF7PwMQkzVFa MeWfitwxluudEqK6OXn81BguycugbAASeWlUTagKfvAtD2xsaSL6vAwjOeYpGeXuL+B7 K4qg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NIPd0jt/+DKCIWK/d4izi8HMY7z9JuliUbPf22CoyvM=; b=SX+m8OoXlh20/YxYmsxoz2vqTVR24UHMwtBp3MmZIYhCakdAil/p4FhWo2kHHPr5xz zRXfY6h0eMpwID7TOM4wCloUgVx4CsxH14FZ86z/XaMIOP2BiMt/7zW7LeoCT8Tu8gjz aNnfmPwh839CtpOeh1nIoJUrds+QiGQRps8yDwdUzmXr5n63mFVZ23szvUnaSDITAbFp fnMHa2nFtTq7hZJp4ub8bx57ytuXzlZcLPpkPays2/Qrx2kk12r0eVEUkVE67wsHLb/K IKiiEvw4AFt4hHyPuado7QrfvnFmmMbWQQpMHgMILl9GYIym3I1tnJLIBWGlVCnu3Qtc GFMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEtJxjrDE6UHsaFF4m7xdPxmXZ78PMygiyr4+wZ5LaUYPZyl4Zz Y+64ueXKkFEWU+FjLz/Ivyk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPx80dAkzcEfG1+FZERyakiNsAhwDEfgnwo/m+Q9q1NsE+qoo/FgfWxK0MtpzH0lUugcaACarg==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:800f:: with SMTP id j15-v6mr12590157pfi.174.1534023115519; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.8.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g7-v6sm15852524pfi.175.2018.08.11.14.31.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Brandon Long <blong=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.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> <CAL0qLwbjpMH30hD8xKnAgT6kJ9wmN9hm3gwnRGmiqTOxKLiHDw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a6eb3ab9-0e0f-f3e5-9dd0-8d9e992595a0@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:31:52 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbjpMH30hD8xKnAgT6kJ9wmN9hm3gwnRGmiqTOxKLiHDw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/LNOaeNFfYjmnnEy7YD07CsRE6jU>
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 21:31:58 -0000

On 8/11/2018 2:20 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 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.
> 


+1*10**inf.

There has been a persistent desire to find a way to continue to process 
an ARC sequence that is broken, as if that will somehow make it unbroken 
or, at least, /less/ broken.

It won't.

As soon as a broken ARC chain is detected, ARC is -- or at least should 
be -- finished.  ARC-aware not should stop processing ARC for that 
message.  Completely stop.

If there is a clear and compelling counter-argument of clear benefit 
that can be achieved, will be achieved, and is desired by receivers, 
what is it?

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email