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> Wed, 25 July 2018 21:50 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 4FFE21277C8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 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] 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 BsPFU-mlnl_U for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (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 765EB12F1A6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id s198-v6so16595954oih.11 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:50:03 -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 :cc; bh=uZPWTKPf/HbF2o6Syfcz9Gpx4jX8+MH7Bt/0fsGnsCo=; b=gxKGE9aIbaqz/JgR7Z+egJM8ymyXhHy4jrHFmRPVPleBM5NdnfR2OryKpUiasWCyxR yPNLNFVXHYENtqY2MZr9YJNJQKq8ZhZgzVfBQclWA33ma5i86z9cVo/jh6Mu0lqhvUFp ai6t7qVNp/2De7pupMwNKjaqy2J3X6TkmwgMN6KqSW5znLmLc4t2J2Gv5e8wT/lPZgcv nbQFL6St39Poids/2DwvG5IDMQK/7alLKJDTRyEdCXn3O6IVxw6zoAPptdcjDeGguMoB q8LmNosfb2f743Fj7P5Brk5+QZYslR3Q0xyjqDMPUApZM4/FI65W7tGRp8eYjlOL/4iZ TuDA==
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=uZPWTKPf/HbF2o6Syfcz9Gpx4jX8+MH7Bt/0fsGnsCo=; b=ADFdoSYhOgFS9/YRFCbgkqvskn85daR22JvXV3NM7lyLNPh5S1zvNLz8rtMmzN+fdx gNjBSTJnRAYlCtV8TNPnNem8XNH9aodZzSQEdJP2XEnCni6uEKSlKuIIbePYnEeEa5qF UTC9/97123KiN82qgAFitVtsgW6frPB9B997145q3IXQiK1e7mqZY9OV0K28rpw3TS9m NvwpK+hF9Y1/HOvtJ+littcIBDz9+hgKVCcm+ScJPa+sfvozLtjpu1VXMxVKuSjN59WG uFmVgRfIGJjcmL4wWrfmFc9IlJj3Ftjz06PCUuSYI2JFN0yNxuNlf9sce+A19SKK8viA 6qrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEexhgogO6HiTzPAxsJqJ6G53ZKZgGAlFsozsXy92NQe7i3AwIJ DNmn/A2RF9M83gdFIvBuwvx9ecHsN/iPDgH2RTe8ATgZ20U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcWlXRT4SOKiGLZ5zO0bsqsSI+xiEzvVbb0u7MK+3lvXRPSZcmZP2pMy6BO3arzsY88BN3a/GsC8p6l8NT1hNk=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:cdc2:: with SMTP id d185-v6mr5598181oig.350.1532555402836; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a9d:2646:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <33404ED3-6683-4802-8223-78AFBACA7805@uniregistry.link>
References: <CAD2i3WMMJPaZYonS-qcz8pwOKYmS2Xe+8WBZPuAqjiGoYePzSg@mail.gmail.com> <33404ED3-6683-4802-8223-78AFBACA7805@uniregistry.link>
From: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:49:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD2i3WNJghM2kdndQB7gubs0hax2mAkr+xNz3asoQrPtKC0tDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luis Muñoz <lem@uniregistry.link>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006297ec0571d9dc56"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ZUW3UgUvzZay7A3Dueb6qe15IlE>
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: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:50:06 -0000

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Luis Muñoz <lem@uniregistry.link> wrote:

> There should be clear indication in the ARC-Seal about which of the
> branches above were taken.
>

Agreed, and that was the intent of cv=invalid. However the working group
had strong consensus not to go down that path.

This could be another valuable output of the experiment, if the invalid
case does require a separate chain validation status.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email