IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC Multi Proposal

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 01 November 2018 23:56 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 94E14129C6A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 16:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.752
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=YBPrk3CV; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=JsLpL8mD
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 4xCXpnYigWIj for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 16:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE0F41271FF for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 16:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 72719 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2018 23:56:22 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=11c0c.5bdb92a6.k1811; bh=lm8TfoYqxUiYZrVm4v0F0F8R1auiX6TahO5/o0ZY8ZY=; b=YBPrk3CVeB5Lj1L8cKb4r0Uo1w+8/5O1ej8UEoaT9fSuJNHeENPqGsQ4uYhOFP0KA7Vdy6en5s4/nd7P3N21i9S4tWyzNJB0lTMBjPEWjsJFBb9ZXYkTdSczZBSX37I0C3EjZLoNXvmc1rI/PgE/qnvPMSvkmZ6jo8oSWUtIhzj9aNWDLPdFUXIcaJ9oSFhpZ76P49kG+yDb3DLENNy4ErL84cx5vqHXiYeYfWmi0Qn6holUdXyNwmZ/S2JvSHny
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=11c0c.5bdb92a6.k1811; bh=lm8TfoYqxUiYZrVm4v0F0F8R1auiX6TahO5/o0ZY8ZY=; b=JsLpL8mDhFjaf3MTb/H5J9xWCT19k+kcL/+bNZfJqDtpmu7/9TX8REdJ+gJkt+zM7ObCT6J6LXsAgNNL2G7xM3syie9j4KL7qed+6/qVbpQTjnbltwT8ymYo/1aiT8k7CFl43MZWXR3/UWVAz+PT2WMerx7r7qi6oc1kp/rzWEe8uJBFqLfqRZnmc2zpPR6NwLyF8km6CJyR8ZNGjuswvIxmSN5hvxuj+cWx+33GAWY8X9GI4mzoyPQGeLedGPlz
Received: from ary.local ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 01 Nov 2018 23:56:22 -0000
Received: by ary.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id AF0B52007DFEBA; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 07:56:21 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2018 07:56:21 +0800
Message-Id: <20181101235621.AF0B52007DFEBA@ary.local>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <9957335.dUWMaE32Bo@kitterma-e6430>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/axN3CWXFhlLFfmQSbBgZx84rt5E>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC Multi Proposal
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 23:56:26 -0000

In article <9957335.dUWMaE32Bo@kitterma-e6430> you write:
>Does it have to be any harder than that?

I hope not but it's still not backward compatible so it's not really any better.

With the current spec, if you have two AMS or AS with the same i=
that's invalid, so if you start putting both rsa and ed25519 seals,
old verifiers will probably fail.  It'd be interesting to mock up
dual seals, send them to Gmail et al, and see what they think.

I suppose we could invent new headers EAMS and EAS and EAAR for the second
and later version of seals, but ugh.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email