IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC Multi Proposal

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Fri, 02 November 2018 08:27 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.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 36D9012008A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 01:27:23 -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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.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 ZNRnh6JK2p9f for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 01:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (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 747F412F18C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 01:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id c16so753198lfj.8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 01:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fL4x/xmbdmTUGO6zpRQtcZfSlawQlTpLCt41Uq9Tw+I=; b=IB84uS1UECctbmV9zEHrsab1/q0jeFC4Pxt0nuGkUKbhg3g4+iGB9taOYFRWvcIB1C +LSZS9j1g9uaPDMvT3bQ8up7PbMbBi21Ww5o57FZ32dPMFa/3yWDRmCVQRcIjhj3HQuW xhITPPC5jAxzVem/ZRpJ1h1gg9k5zz16awO1U=
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:cc; bh=fL4x/xmbdmTUGO6zpRQtcZfSlawQlTpLCt41Uq9Tw+I=; b=VpdwylPDjgeIpJho53akCUoKtadnL8ZUvQLVkbiku+4GSHmfrFkgRG+PiRlOz44Pb4 n5sUZQztk6kmxaSdplWXo1c47vv7D0yV39G6NhQk3g7l88uj11SCcAF6VkQKzuAkRcOY OQ9vYslcc6/MYH51rKMxmXgwNq+nXeACfBS+k0u/uozYmRgzsbYCehs/Ga6/JXJ1k+8M 7O88Tayl1OCG5zbRxJZQj8bjUmgMM+9QKKT+lDSXpmCRULViglNxQ8dFDlF+18fR6+9X k2cIAY5fCIOAf01iX+QUSrtiliJH2KMzQuu/d7vwl3Okvf3mBkSJTCRKJazVh6+l3g3w TnkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIWp50D0Yq/FYJp9/oDQTuZFzWUDpIMkDPwinRtt8Lp0PfH4HeM 8S2FtmbacNd5SSY3anufe8OkjhW/TnX46qMJImifqHLpC38=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dnWCE27NY3bsllUBDTiGpudAoAeSJ8buY5l6QyoNGMzVFvxwmF34FUffftgyCQdpESgSCsIuJS4kgLnVlWkGk=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:df41:: with SMTP id q1mr6521784lfj.25.1541147239246; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 01:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9957335.dUWMaE32Bo@kitterma-e6430> <20181101235621.AF0B52007DFEBA@ary.local>
In-Reply-To: <20181101235621.AF0B52007DFEBA@ary.local>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2018 17:26:51 +0900
Message-ID: <CABuGu1qOstiqvHfPSnZmfgHXx-VEAq543g9GWjWGaDQ3GxFUgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000be02620579aa4d5e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/yir6QQ4XcofLj98vdD44f-jrnr8>
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: Fri, 02 Nov 2018 08:27:23 -0000

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:56 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> 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,
>

No, it is not invalid. We did try to downplay the details a bit in the
spec, but if you use a different signing algorithm, you can have as many
ARC sets with the same instance as you have legal algorithms.

--Kurt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email