IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 15 August 2018 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 C5B401310ED for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 a7cEpZHGBq9n for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:54:23 -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 D3278131071 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 11820 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2018 19:54:21 -0000
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 15 Aug 2018 19:54:21 -0000
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:54:21 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1808151550370.18082@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <bd537a2a-5396-9d11-bef4-2363382d8954@gmail.com>
References: <20180815183022.09ED420038205D@ary.qy> <5a48a9af-1dc7-92dd-eaa8-c1df09ae26cf@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1808151449300.17305@ary.qy> <bd537a2a-5396-9d11-bef4-2363382d8954@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/uaN7FmpBd61e3ku3fULd6WFQlkc>
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, 15 Aug 2018 19:54:32 -0000

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Dave Crocker wrote:
> This is a very different kind and degree of vague (and without precedent, I 
> believe (unless someone can point to operational experience on the net that 
> is similar?)

I believe there are lots of trace fields that don't have a concrete use. 
I am not familiar with any standardized use of the values in the ID field 
in Received headers, although they're often handy in practice to track 
down the details of what happened to a message.

Can you explain in words the damage that cv=fail signatures will cause, 
and a rough idea of the cost to ARC signers and verifiers?  To me the 
answers are none, and trivial.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email