Subject: [dmarc-ietf] ARC Interoperability testing Friday, Dec 16th

From: Steven M Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:35:31 -0800

Do you have an ARC implementation? Have you tried testing it against
somebody else's implementation? If not, you should join our testing
event Friday of this week! No travel required, we'll be sending messages
between implementations while on a conference bridge. Video optional.

If you have an implementation of ARC in your product or service, contact
me off-list. I'll add you to the list of interop participants, and
you'll receive details for this and future testing events.

Thanks,
--Steve.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:15:34 -0500

Steve, can you give us a brief report on how this went?

Barry, chair

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Steven M Jones <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

---

From: Steven M Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:26:56 -0800

> Steve, can you give us a brief report on how this went?

A very brief report, yes - because it turned out that three of four
implementations would have no representatives available at that time, so
the testing did not in fact happen. My apologies for not reporting that
at the time, but I was busy coming down with the flu.

Speaking for myself, I didn't think it would take this long to pull the
implementations together - which is unfair given that I'm not writing
one... We had originally thought to collect a test corpus as an output
of the live test sessions, because we thought this would all be pretty
easy. But while some sample messages were shared from session to
session, nobody produced a comprehensive set as implementations were
found to be incomplete, or buggy, etc..

In the most recent conversation I had with Murray Kucherawy, around the
14th, we discussed just picking an implementation and producing such a
corpus. Publish the keys, the input and output messages, and maybe the
intermediate stages like canonicalized hashes, and allow the various
implementers to run that against their code off-line. They could then
take a stab at determining if there was a bug (and on which side), or a
vague point in the spec, without having to coordinate schedules.

Where is said corpus? See previous comment about flu, and the holidays.

That's the current status. Thanks for reminding me about this open work
item.

--Steve.