IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Clarifying the value of arc.closest-fail

Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com> Wed, 03 January 2018 23:00 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 6BBC012D77B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:00:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 93AhsKJbldoY for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:00:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x230.google.com (mail-ua0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::230]) (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 84546129C6C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:00:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 34so2059144uav.5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:00:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/rWVMW3fZlwzaK/QSJgEA9lDrB91MrmTZqoDGbg1+xU=; b=DSFsJEcjjb/foSIZToVywiom6JLcdxJtr6HIwMdx8yxlWcBAOj+JJOY87YrZAySzA7 ceeeWCzL/yN0NDiuVvQZMKRMfsY+WuYumrrEBIsVHA15hYR5fTzCrCCossgD+34OHVFp chCp0WtrT1islzwvyGMilD1kVfJpXiiz+aMt/x9vhfSbhlElwSfNQWDfLlP82TsBC6YO WASM1dbYJPec/WZpOagn/KnZ0LGBuFN9Z4b0v4dhbt4YRrdIiVYMf3N9IjOElAPZkeZK hwGlV0V4H1+/UJ5TDShaJtts5RRGEQmzgcA7duzRDXI3gB8wyMEvsnCwy9pdCUFVpJ+x zj6A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=/rWVMW3fZlwzaK/QSJgEA9lDrB91MrmTZqoDGbg1+xU=; b=ajLI3LL7KjN9pfLrIGbCMap570M0Vs89zA1avEK7Jl+QHRfYdZww9W51EORq51atHl zhzjPTP26gn2f/c5Qp+4VMr8Qj0Ek6+Fa6ngpzRSnJLy0EKijK2/i3SM8miWHUWnSzYk YRxibYHB6q90ngHam0onA6kns1luoRTPZi/zGywoNjPTehHwb8kaTbOXc1zjcr/aUKk5 O+UlzyfeLe1vupIsheyJpWwNJJrfhomd8fA74M4sKF3AFDLHaYZB2UlRoYUe1pxBwTjL Ym4dZNlCU6YDJIzacw97Gxe9RlWc+PG9IXjNCUzk4hB0iQj2JID1JO20749WK6gRem+Y nukA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLH8rxQ7ZfNkwuPD74D+PYWfLJJge1xpf5wy7g3tZD9W2ClnyFm +OiiTlz8BBQIhl5v2l0LunpeRwg6dWLeKT9LXe2Xsjfc
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotfIbJYwEK7MYa3SEX/UuuvxbZpwHhX/72za95Z3GqxcteCrtrPpEJ/16/C1EkO5GJpnxtKPD13kQkcC8sZnCg=
X-Received: by 10.176.0.15 with SMTP id 15mr3046688uai.132.1515020434184; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:00:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABuGu1oEWD5Ls3+SKqEgUgXo2iznawFdNB31h91+NbAHpLE59Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1oEWD5Ls3+SKqEgUgXo2iznawFdNB31h91+NbAHpLE59Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 23:00:22 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2i3WNXQ3_B+M+n_-uhEkZHLTNKY0--7=EEZ1KYd9QAAF8LwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c166aaceb3430561e72ec7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/vsmQuKRrFCKDpy50pYO0VlmtgKE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Clarifying the value of arc.closest-fail
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 03 Jan 2018 23:00:37 -0000

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 14:50 Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:

> I'm uncomfortable with the terminology implied by the term
> "arc.closest-fail". I think that it is more "ams.closest-fail" or
> "arc.ams-broken". AMS is expected to not verify except in the most recent
> ARC set. Doing so is not in any way a "failure" and has no bearing on the
> validity of the ARC chain (as documented in the cv parameter). Opinions
> regarding a replacement term?
>

My strong preference is this be tracked and the considerstions therein
referenced in Experimental Considerations. I have no strong preference what
we actually call it.

I’m fine with ams.cb for “closest break” if that keeps things nice and tidy
for an A-R (i.e. arc=pass ams.cb=1).

I also like it because then we have arc cv and ams cb. But I’m splitting
hairs, and again, don’t really care what it’s called.

>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email