Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Prodding for reviews... and planning NOT to have a meeting in Chicago

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 09:04:33 -0800

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Kurt Andersen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 1) Murray had promised some ideas for restructuring the draft to make it
> more understandable, but I haven't received them yet.
>
>
I've been making notes about this as I complete the first releasable
version of OpenARC.  I think it's there now, but really needs some time
spent on documentation and then proper testing against a common accepted
corpus (see Steve's message) which I can help to construct.  The
availability of such a thing obviates the need for coordinated testing,
which seems to have been hard to arrange lately, although I'd like it if we
could get one together perhaps before/during/after the next M3AWG meeting
in SF because the DKIM one was so useful.

I concur, though, no need to meet in Chicago, at least formally.  I'll be
there though if anyone wants to work on something.

-MSK

---

From: Kurt Andersen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 10:25:04 -0800

> in SF because the DKIM one was so useful.

I'm happy to host an in-person interop on Friday following M3AAWG (Feb 24)
if there is interest (the LinkedIn office is just a few blocks from the
conference hotel). I think it would be helpful to have a pre-check run some
time in January so that we could potentially have some of the vendors who
are interested in leveraging the OpenARC code as a plugin within their
product might be able to have a few weeks to possibly hack together an
alpha instance for the "big" interop.

I'd be happy to review the docs for OpenARC and Steve probably has the most
experience working on standing it up inside of VMs so he may be able to
contribute suggestions too.

Murray, would you be available to join us in SF on Feb 24?

--Kurt

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:35:23 +0300

Is it worth having a Hackaton ARC interop testing in Chicago?

> On 2 Jan 2017, at 20:04, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> 1) Murray had promised some ideas for restructuring the draft to make it more understandable, but I haven't received them yet.
> 
> I've been making notes about this as I complete the first releasable version of OpenARC.  I think it's there now, but really needs some time spent on documentation and then proper testing against a common accepted corpus (see Steve's message) which I can help to construct.  The availability of such a thing obviates the need for coordinated testing, which seems to have been hard to arrange lately, although I'd like it if we could get one together perhaps before/during/after the next M3AWG meeting in SF because the DKIM one was so useful.
> 
> I concur, though, no need to meet in Chicago, at least formally.  I'll be there though if anyone wants to work on something.
> 
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

---

From: Kurt Andersen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 09:09:03 -0800

> Is it worth having a Hackaton ARC interop testing in Chicago?

We could, but I'm not sure how many of the "usual suspects" will be
attending Chicago (I know that I'll be on vacation in Ecuador at that time).

An interop testing event on Feb 24 in San Francisco would be open to both
on-site participants as well as remote folks.

--Kurt