[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol

independent                                              . OAR-DEV Group
Internet-Draft                                             OAR-DEV Group
Intended status: Informational                               K. Andersen
Expires: October 6, 2016                                        LinkedIn
                                                       J. Rae-Grant, Ed.
                                                            B. Long, Ed.
                                                                  Google
                                                           T. Adams, Ed.
                                                                  Paypal
                                                           S. Jones, Ed.
                                                                     TDP
                                                          April 04, 2016


                   Authenticated Received Chain (ARC)
                         draft-andersen-arc-03

Abstract

   Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) permits an organization which is
   creating or handling email to indicate their involvement with the
   handling process by adding a set of cryptographically signed header
   fields in a manner analagous to that of DomainKeys Identified Mail
   (DKIM).  Assertion of responsibility is validated through a
   cryptographic signature and by querying the Signer's domain directly
   to retrieve the appropriate public key.  Changes in the message which
   may break DKIM, may be tracked through the ARC set of header fields.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 6, 2016.







OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
   be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Primary Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Out of Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Description of the new header fields  . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.1.1.  ARC-Seal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.1.2.  ARC-Message-Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.1.3.  ARC-Authentication-Results  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Constructing the ARC-Seal Header Set  . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.2.1.  Handling Violations in the ARC Header Field Set . . .  10
     5.3.  Key Management and Binding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.3.1.  Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  Relationship between DKIM Signatures and ARC Headers  . .  12
     6.3.  Relationship of ARC-Message-Signatures and ARC-Seals  . .  12
     6.4.  Validating the ARC set of header fields . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.5.  Assessing violations of ARC set validity  . . . . . . . .  12
     6.6.  Reporting violations of ARC set validity  . . . . . . . .  13
     6.7.  Recording results of ARC evaluation . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       6.7.1.  RFC6651 Failure Reporting for ARC . . . . . . . . . .  13
       6.7.2.  Reporting ARC Effects for DMARC Local Policy  . . . .  13
   7.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14



OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


     8.1.  Update to RFC7601 header field method list  . . . . . . .  14
     8.2.  Definitions of the ARC header fields  . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.1.  Preventing Repurposing of ARC Headers . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.2.  Messages Which Transit the Same ADMD More Than Once . . .  15
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Appendix A.  Appendix A - Example Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     A.1.  Example 1: Simple mailing list  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       A.1.1.  Here's the message as it exits the Origin:  . . . . .  18
       A.1.2.  Message is then received at example.org . . . . . . .  18
       A.1.3.  Example 1: Message received by Recipient  . . . . . .  20
     A.2.  Example 2: Mailing list to forwarded mailbox  . . . . . .  21
       A.2.1.  Here's the message as it exits the Origin:  . . . . .  21
       A.2.2.  Message is then received at example.org . . . . . . .  22
       A.2.3.  Example 2: Message received by Recipient  . . . . . .  26
     A.3.  Example 3: Mailing list to forwarded mailbox with source   28
       A.3.1.  Here's the message as it exits the Origin:  . . . . .  28
       A.3.2.  Message is then received at example.org . . . . . . .  29
       A.3.3.  Example 3: Message received by Recipient  . . . . . .  34
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   Appendix C.  Comments and Feedback  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Appendix D.  Historical Note  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37

1.  Introduction

   The development of strong domain authentication through SPF and DKIM
   has led to the implementation of the DMARC framework [RFC7489].
   Implicit within the DMARC framework is a requirement that any
   intermediaries between the source system and ultimate receiver system
   must preserve the validity of the DKIM signature; however, there are
   common email practices which break the DKIM validation
   ([DMARC-INTEROP]).  This proposal is intended to define an
   Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) to address the problems with the
   untrustworthiness of the standard Received header field sequence so
   that receivers can develop a more nuanced interpretation to guide any
   local policies related to messages which arrive with broken domain
   authentication.

   Forgery of the Received header fields is a common tactic for bad
   actors.  One of the goals of this proposal is to define a comparable
   set of trace header fields which can be relied upon by receivers in
   so far as all ADMD (ADministrative Management Domain) handlers of a
   message participate in the ARC chain.





OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   The Authentication-Results (A-R) mechanism [RFC7601] permits the
   output of an email authentication evaluation process to be
   transmitted from the evaluating host to a consuming host that uses
   the information.  On its own, A-R operates within a trust domain.
   ARC provides a protection mechanism for the data, permiting the
   communication to cross trust domain boundaries.

2.  Requirements

   The specification of the ARC framework is driven by the following
   high-level goals, security considerations, and practical operational
   requirements.

2.1.  Primary Design Criteria

   o  Provide a method by which a "chain of custody" can be documented
      for email messages

   o  Not require changes for senders of email

   o  Support the complete verification of the ARC header field set by
      each hop in the handling chain

   o  Work at internet scale

   o  Provide a trustable mechanism for the communication of
      Authentication-Results across trust boundaries.

2.2.  Out of Scope

   ARC is not a trust framework.  Users of the ARC header fields are
   cautioned against making unsubstantiated conclusions when
   encountering a "broken" ARC sequence.

2.3.  Utility

   The ARC-related set of header fields can be used (when validated) to
   determine the path that an email message has taken between the
   sending system and receiver.  Subject to the cautions mentioned below
   under Section 9, this information can assist in determining any local
   policy overrides to for violations of sender domain authentication
   policies.

3.  Terminology

   This section defines terms used in the rest of the document.





OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   Readers are encouraged to be familiar with the contents of [RFC5598],
   and in particular, the potential roles of intermediaries in the
   delivery of email.

   Syntax descriptions use Augmented BNF (ABNF) [RFC5234].

4.  Overview

   When an email is received without a properly valildated domain
   author, the inability to believe the accuracy of a series of Received
   header fields prevents receiving systems from having a way to infer
   anything about the handling of the message by looking at the ADMD's
   through which the message has traveled.

   With the implementation of this proposal, participating ADMDs would
   be able to securely register their handling of an email message.  If
   all intermediaries participate in the ARC process, then receivers
   will be able to rely upon the chain and make local policy decisions
   informed by that information.

   The ARC set of header fields provides a method by which participating
   intermediaries can indicate the hand-offs for email messages.

5.  Definition

   This proposal defines three new header fields:

   o  Header field name: ARC-Seal (abbreviated below as AS)

   o  Header field name: ARC-Message-Signature (abbreviated below as
      AMS)

   o  Header field name: ARC-Authentication-Results (abbreviated below
      as AAR)

   Collectively, these header fields form a connected set of attribution
   information by which receivers can identify the handling path for a
   message.  The collective group is referred to in this document as the
   "ARC header [field]s" or "set of ARC header [field]s".

   Specific references to individual header fields use the header field
   names to distinguish such references.





OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   The ARC header sets SHOULD be added at the top of a message as it
   transits MTAs that do authentication checks, so some idea of how far
   away the checks were done can be inferred.  They are therefore
   considered to be a trace field as defined in [RFC5321], and all of
   the related definitions in that document apply.

   Relative ordering of different trace header fields (the ARC sets,
   DKIM, Received, etc.) is unimportant for this specification.  In
   general, trace header fields, such as ARC, SHOULD be added at the top
   of the email header fields, but receivers MUST be able to process the
   header fields from wherever they are found in the message header.
   Ordering amongst the individual ARC header fields and header field
   sets is specified below and MUST be followed for proper canonicalized
   signing and evaluation.

5.1.  Description of the new header fields

5.1.1.  ARC-Seal

   ARC-Seal is a Structured Header Field as defined in Internet Message
   Format ([RFC5322]).  All of the related definitions in that document
   apply.

   The ARC-Seal makes use of the "tag=value" construction as defined in
   [RFC6376], section 3.2.

   The value of the header field consists of an authentication
   identifier, and a series of statements and supporting data.  The
   statements are of the form "tag=value" and indicate relevant data
   about the signing of the ARC set of header fields.  The header field
   can appear more than once in a single message, but each instance must
   have a unique "i=" value.

   The ARC-Seal header field only signs across the (earlier) ARC-Seal,
   (and all) ARC-Message-Signature, and ARC-Authentication-Results
   header fields.

5.1.1.1.  Tags in the ARC-Seal header field value

5.1.1.1.1.  Mandatory

   o  i = instance or sequence number; monotonically increasing at each
      "sealing" entity beginning with '1'

   o  a = hash algorithm (SHA256 as example) (as per [RFC6376] "a" tag)

   o  t = timestamp (seconds since Unix epoch) (as per [RFC6376] "t"
      tag)



OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   o  s = Selector for key ("s=seal2015") (as per [RFC6376] "s" tag)

   o  d = domain for key ("d=example.com") (as per [RFC6376] "d" tag)

   o  b = signature of the header field hash (as per [RFC6376] "b" tag)

   o  cv = chain validation status: values =

      *  'V' = valid chain received;

      *  'N' = no pre-existing chain;

      *  'P' = permanent error, the chain as received does not validate;

      *  'T' = temporary error, such as a DNS lookup error

5.1.1.2.  Differences between DKIM-Signature and ARC-Seal

   No 'bh' value is defined for ARC-Seal.

   ARC-Seal does not use the 'h' list of header fields that is defined
   for DKIM-Signatures because the list of applicable header fields is
   fully determined by the construction rules (see Section 5.2).

   ARC-Seal does not use the 'c' (canonicalization) tag because only
   'relaxed' canonicalization [RFC6376] is allowed for ARC-Seal header
   field canonicalization.

5.1.1.3.  Implicit 'h' Value for ARC-Seal

5.1.1.3.1.  First instance

   The ARC-Seal's (AS(1)) effective "h" scope would be
   AAR(1):AMS(1):AS(1-no-b).

5.1.1.3.2.  Second instance

   The ARC-Seal's (AS(2)) effective "h" scope would be
   AAR(1):AMS(1):AS(1):AAR(2):AMS(2):AS(2-no-b).

5.1.1.3.3.  Third instance

   The ARC-Seal's (AS(3)) effective "h" scope would be
   AAR(1):AMS(1):AS(1):AAR(2):AMS(2):AS(2):AAR(3):AMS(3):AS(3-no-b).







OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


5.1.1.4.  Computing the 'b' signature value for ARC-Seal

   The ARC-Seal instance with an empty 'b' field shall be affixed when
   computing the signature and the 'b' value added afterward just as in
   the procedure for DKIM-Signature calculations (section 3.5 of
   [RFC6376]).

   Signing calculation MUST be done in bottom-up order as specified in
   section 5.4.2 of [RFC6376] and as illustrated above Section 5.1.1.3.

5.1.2.  ARC-Message-Signature

   The ARC-Message-Signature header field is a special variant of a
   DKIM-Signature [RFC6376], using only the relaxed header
   canonicalization rules specified in [RFC6376].

   The ARC-Message-Signature header field can appear multiple times in a
   single message but each instance must have a unique "i=" value.

5.1.2.1.  Differences between DKIM-Signature and ARC-Message-Signature

5.1.2.1.1.  'h' value

   [[ Note: As of -03, the concept of implicit headers included in the
   signature is eliminated. ]]

5.1.2.1.1.1.  Header Fields Excluded From ARC-Message-Signature 'h'

   ARC-Seal headers MUST not be included in the signing scope of any
   ARC-Message-Signature headers.

5.1.2.1.1.2.  Header Fields Eligible For ARC-Message-Signature 'h'

   Participants may include any other header fields within the scope of
   the ARC-Message-Signature signature except ARC-Seal headers.  In
   particular, all DKIM-Signature header fields are highly recommended
   to be included.  The advice regarding headers to avoid is found in
   section 5.4 of [RFC6376] and should be observed for ARC-Message-
   Signatures just as they are for DKIM-Signature exclusion.  ARC-
   Authentication-Results SHOULD be included explicitly within the scope
   of ARC-Message-Signature headers.

5.1.2.1.2.  Implicit Canonicalization: 'c'

   The ARC-Message-Signature header field MUST be created using the
   relaxed header canonicalization rules [RFC6376].  The "c=" field MUST
   not be included in the ARC-Message-Signature.




OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


5.1.2.1.3.  'i' value

   For the ARC-Message-Signature, the 'i' value is the corresponding
   instance which matches the 'i' value of the related ARC-Seal (see
   Section 5.1.1.1.1).

5.1.2.1.4.  'v'

   'v' is not defined for an ARC-Message-Signature and is not allowed.

5.1.2.2.  Computing the 'b' value for ARC-Message-Signature

   The ARC-Message-Signature instance with an empty 'b' field shall be
   affixed when computing the signature and the 'b' value added
   afterward just as in the procedure for DKIM-Signature calculations
   (section 3.5 of [RFC6376]).

   Header signing MUST be done in bottom-up order as specified in
   section 5.4.2 of [RFC6376].

5.1.3.  ARC-Authentication-Results

   ARC-Authentication-Results is a direct copy of the Authentication-
   Results header field [RFC7601] created for archival purposes by the
   each MTA outside of the trust boundary of the originating system
   which is contributing to the chain of ARC header fields.  (See also
   [OAR] for a similar usage.)  The corresponding instance ("i=") value
   MUST be prefixed to the Authentication-Results.

   The value of the header field (after removing comments) consists of
   an instance identifier, an authentication identifier, and then a
   series of statements and supporting data.  The statements are of the
   form "method=result" and indicate which authentication method(s) were
   applied and their respective results.  For each such statement, the
   supporting data can include a "reason" string and one or more
   "property=value" statements indicating which message properties were
   evaluated to reach that conclusion.  The header field can appear
   multiple times in a single message but each instance must have a
   unique "i=" value.

5.1.3.1.  'i' value

   For the ARC-Authentication-Results, the 'i' value is the
   corresponding instance which matches the 'i' value of the related
   ARC-Seal (see Section 5.1.1.1.1).






OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


5.2.  Constructing the ARC-Seal Header Set

   The ARC-Seal is built in the same fashion as the analogous DKIM-
   Signature [RFC6376], using the relaxed header canonicalization rules
   specified in [RFC6376] but with a strict ordering component for the
   header fields which are covered by the cryptographic signature:

   1.  The ARC header fields MUST be ordered in descending instance (i=)
       order.

   2.  The referenced ARC-Message-Signatures (matching i= value) MUST
       immediately follow the ARC-Seal instance which included the
       reference.

   3.  The associated ARC-Authentication-Results header field (matching
       i= value) MUST be the last item in the list for each set of ARC
       header fields.

   Thus, when prefixing ARC header fields to the beginning part of the
   header block,

   1.  the AAR header would be prefixed first; then

   2.  the AMS would be calculated and prefixed;

   3.  lastly the AS would be calculated and prefixed.

5.2.1.  Handling Violations in the ARC Header Field Set

   When ordering the ARC set header fields, if there are gross
   violations of this protocol, such as duplicated instance numbers,
   such header field set(s) shall be ordered as follows (when analyzing
   for validity or subsequent signing):

   o  Within each set, header fields shall be sorted as specified in
      Section 5.2.

   o  Any header field sets which are complete duplicates shall be
      deduplicated - leaving only one instance of each unique header
      field set; then any remaining order dependencies between sets
      shall be ordered as follows:

   1.  (First) By descending order of i=

   2.  (First) By descending order of t= (from the ARC-Seal header field
       within the set)





OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   3.  (Finally) By ascending US-ASCII [RFC1345] sort order for the
       entire canonicalized header field set

   The intent of specifying this ordering is to allow downstream message
   handlers to add their own ARC header field sets in a deterministic
   manner and to provide some resiliance against mis-behaving downstream
   MTAs.  Participants who wish to have ARC information accrue to their
   benefit are advised to ensure proper implementation so that this
   section would never need to be invoked for their ARC header fields.

5.3.  Key Management and Binding

   The public keys for ARC-Seals follow the same requirements and
   semantics as those for DKIM-Signatures [RFC6376].  Operators may use
   distinct selectors for the ARC-Seals at their own discretion.

5.3.1.  Namespace

   All ARC-Seal keys are stored in the same subdomain as DKIM keys
   [RFC6376]: "_domainkey".  Given an ARC-Seal field with a "d=" tag of
   "example.com" and an "s=" tag of "foo.bar", the DNS query will be for
   "foo.bar._domainkey.example.com".

6.  Usage

   For a more thorough treatment of the recommended usage of the ARC
   header fields for both intermediaries and end receivers, please
   consult [ARC-USAGE].

6.1.  Participation

   The inclusion of additional ARC header field sets should be done
   whenever a trust boundary is crossed and especially when prior DKIM-
   Signatures may not survive the handling which is being performed
   (such as some mailing lists which modify the content of messages or
   some gateway transformations).  Note that trust boundaries may or may
   not exactly correspond with ADMD boundaries.

   Each participating ADMD MUST validate the preceding ARC set of header
   fields as a part of asserting their own seal.  Even if the set is
   determined to be invalid, a participating ADMD SHOULD apply their own
   seal because this can help in analysis of breakage points in the
   chain.








OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


6.2.  Relationship between DKIM Signatures and ARC Headers

   Any DKIM-Signatures SHOULD not include any of the ARC-Seal, ARC-
   Message-Signature, or ARC-Authentication-Results header fields in the
   scope of their header list.

   ARC-Message-Signatures SHOULD include all DKIM-Signatures within
   their scope.

6.3.  Relationship of ARC-Message-Signatures and ARC-Seals

   The ARC-Message-Signature(s) should not include any of the ARC-Seal
   header fields in their coverage scope in order maintain a separation
   of responsibilities.  When adding an ARC-Authentication-Results
   header field, it should be added before computing the ARC-Message-
   Signature.  When "sealing" the message, an operator must create the
   ARC-Message-Signature before the ARC-Seal in order to reference it
   and embed the ARC-Message-Signature within the ARC-Seal signature
   scope.  (Also refer to Section 5.2)

   Each ARC-Seal is connected to its respective ARC-Message-Signature
   through the i= field.

6.4.  Validating the ARC set of header fields

   Validation of the ARC header fields can be performed step-wise by
   building up the sequence in order as defined in Section 5.2 and
   evaluating the correctness of the b= signature at each step.  If a
   violation of the construction rules is found, for instance missing or
   repeated instance numbers or an otherwise invalid ARC-Seal header
   field, validation fails and should be indicated as 'P'(ermanent
   error).

6.5.  Assessing violations of ARC set validity

   There are a wide variety of ways in which the ARC set of header
   fields can be broken.  Receivers should be wary of ascribing motive
   to such breakage although patterns of common behaviour may provide
   some basis for adjusting local policy decisions.

   This proposal is exclusively focused on well-behaved, participating
   intermediaries that result in a valid chain of ARC-related header
   fields.  The presence of such a well-formed valid chain should also
   not be over-interpreted since malicious content can be easily
   introduced by otherwise well-intended senders through machine or
   account compromises.  All normal content-based analysis should still
   be performed on any messages bearing an ARC sequence.




OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


6.6.  Reporting violations of ARC set validity

   If a receiver determines that the ARC set of header fields has a
   permanent error, the receiver MAY signal the breakage through the
   extended SMTP response code 5.7.7 [RFC3463] "message integrity
   failure" [ENHANCED-STATUS].

   The extended SMTP response code should be paired with a 550 reply
   code.  (550 = Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (e.g.,
   mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected for policy reasons)
   [RFC5321])

6.7.  Recording results of ARC evaluation

   Receivers may add an "arc=pass" or "arc=fail" method annotation into
   their local Authentication-Results [RFC7601] header field.

6.7.1.  RFC6651 Failure Reporting for ARC

   Due to very limited adoption, ARC evaluation results are not
   recommended for failure reporting as described for DKIM in [RFC6651].

6.7.2.  Reporting ARC Effects for DMARC Local Policy

   Receivers SHOULD indicate situations in which ARC evaluation
   influenced the results of their local policy determination.  Usage in
   the DMARC reporting may look something like (utilizing a list of the
   ARC participants that were found):

   <policy_evaluated>
     <disposition>delivered</disposition>
     <dkim>fail</dkim>
     <spf>fail</spf>
     <reason>
      <type>local_policy</type>
      <comment>arc=pass d=d1.example,d2.example</comment>
     </reason>
   </policy_evaluated>

7.  Privacy Considerations

   The ARC-Seal chain provides a verifiable record of the handlers for a
   message.  Anonymous remailers will probably not find this to match
   their operating goals.







OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


8.  IANA Considerations

   This proposal adds three new header fields as defined below.

8.1.  Update to RFC7601 header field method list

   This proposal adds a new method to the [RFC7601] header field: "arc="
   for recording the results of the ARC header field validation.

8.2.  Definitions of the ARC header fields

   This proposal adds three new header fields to the "Permanent Message
   Header Field Registry", as follows:

   o  Header field name: ARC-Seal

      Applicable protocol: mail

      Status: draft

      Author/Change controller: OAR-Dev Group

      Specification document(s): [I-D.ARC]

      Related information: [RFC6376]

   o  Header field name: ARC-Message-Signature

      Applicable protocol: mail

      Status: draft

      Author/Change controller: OAR-Dev Group

      Specification document(s): [I-D.ARC]

      Related information: [RFC6376]

   o  Header field name: ARC-Authentication-Results

      Applicable protocol: mail

      Status: standard

      Author/Change controller: IETF

      Specification document(s): [I-D.ARC]




OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


      Related information: [RFC7601] [OAR]

9.  Security Considerations

   Recipients are cautioned to treat messages bearing ARC-Seal chains
   with the same suspicion that they apply to all other email messages.
   This includes appropriate content scanning and other checks for
   potentially malicious content.  The handlers which are identified
   within the ARC-Seal chain may be used to provide input to local
   policy engines in cases where the sending system's DKIM-Signature
   does not validate.

9.1.  Preventing Repurposing of ARC Headers

   ARC headers can not be re-used as DKIM-Signatures because the header
   field names are incorporated in the signed content of both the AMS
   and AS header fields.

9.2.  Messages Which Transit the Same ADMD More Than Once

   Messages which loop in and out of an ADMD may lead to confusion about
   the scope of a particular set of ARC header fields.  The use of
   coordinated instance (i=) values and the non-confusability of the
   ARC-Message-Signature vs. a DKIM-Signature are designed to prevent
   misunderstandings.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1345]  Simonsen, K., "Character Mnemonics and Character Sets",
              RFC 1345, DOI 10.17487/RFC1345, June 1992,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1345>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2142]  Crocker, D., "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and
              Functions", RFC 2142, DOI 10.17487/RFC2142, May 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2142>.

   [RFC2606]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
              Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, DOI 10.17487/RFC2606, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2606>.





OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   [RFC3463]  Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes",
              RFC 3463, DOI 10.17487/RFC3463, January 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3463>.

   [RFC4686]  Fenton, J., "Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys
              Identified Mail (DKIM)", RFC 4686, DOI 10.17487/RFC4686,
              September 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4686>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC5321]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.

   [RFC5322]  Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322>.

   [RFC5585]  Hansen, T., Crocker, D., and P. Hallam-Baker, "DomainKeys
              Identified Mail (DKIM) Service Overview", RFC 5585,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5585, July 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5585>.

   [RFC5598]  Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5598, July 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5598>.

   [RFC5863]  Hansen, T., Siegel, E., Hallam-Baker, P., and D. Crocker,
              "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Development,
              Deployment, and Operations", RFC 5863,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5863, May 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5863>.

   [RFC6376]  Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed.,
              "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76,
              RFC 6376, DOI 10.17487/RFC6376, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376>.






OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   [RFC6377]  Kucherawy, M., "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and
              Mailing Lists", BCP 167, RFC 6377, DOI 10.17487/RFC6377,
              September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6377>.

   [RFC6651]  Kucherawy, M., "Extensions to DomainKeys Identified Mail
              (DKIM) for Failure Reporting", RFC 6651,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6651, June 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6651>.

   [RFC7601]  Kucherawy, M., "Message Header Field for Indicating
              Message Authentication Status", RFC 7601,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7601, August 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7601>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [ARC-USAGE]
              Jones, S., Adams, T., Rae-Grant, J., and K. Andersen,
              "Recommended Usage of the ARC Headers", October 2015,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-arc-usage-00>.

   [DMARC-INTEROP]
              Martin, F., Lear, E., Draegen, T., Zwicky, E., and K.
              Andersen, "Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and
              Indirect Email Flows", January 2016,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-
              interoperability-14>.

   [ENHANCED-STATUS]
              "IANA SMTP Enhanced Status Codes", n.d.,
              <http://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-
              codes/smtp-enhanced-status-codes.xhtml>.

   [OAR]      Chew, M. and M. Kucherawy, "Original-Authentication-
              Results Header Field", February 2012,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-original-
              authres-00>.

   [RFC7489]  Kucherawy, M., Ed. and E. Zwicky, Ed., "Domain-based
              Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
              (DMARC)", RFC 7489, DOI 10.17487/RFC7489, March 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7489>.

10.3.  URIs

   [1] mailto:arc-discuss@dmarc.org





OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


Appendix A.  Appendix A - Example Usage

   [[ TODO [-03]: update these examples ]]

A.1.  Example 1: Simple mailing list

A.1.1.  Here's the message as it exits the Origin:

 Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
 Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
     (authenticated bits=0)
     by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
     Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
     (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
     s=20130426; t=1421363082;
     bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
     h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
      Content-Transfer-Encoding;
     b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijrvQw
      bv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4Gd3TRJl
      gotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
 Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
 From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
 To: arc@dmarc.org
 Subject: Example 1

 Hey gang,
 This is a test message.
 --J.

A.1.2.  Message is then received at example.org

A.1.2.1.  Example 1, Step A: Message forwarded to list members

   Processing at example.org:

   o  example.org performs authentication checks

   o  No previous Auth-Results or ARC-Seal headers are present

   o  example.org adds ARC-Auth-Results header

   o  example.org adds Received: header

   o  example.org adds a ARC-Seal header




OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   Here's the message as it exits example.org:

 Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
     s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=N;
     b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
      TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
      EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
 ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;
     d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
     bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
     h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
      List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
     b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF1F5
      vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3A+m4bw
      a6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
 Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
     by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
     for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
     (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
 ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.example.org;
     spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
     dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example;
     dmarc=pass
 Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
     (authenticated bits=0)
     by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
     Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
     (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
     s=20130426; t=1421363082;
     bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
     h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
      Content-Transfer-Encoding;
     b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijr
      vQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4G
      d3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
 Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
 From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
 To: arc@example.org
 Subject: [Lists] Example 1

 Hey gang,
 This is a test message.
 --J.





OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


A.1.3.  Example 1: Message received by Recipient

   Let's say that the Recipient is example.com

   Processing at example.com:

   o  example.com performs usual authentication checks

   o  example.com adds Auth-Results: header, Received header

   o  Determines that message fails DMARC

   o  Checks for ARC-Seal: header; finds one

   o  Validates the signature in the ARC-Seal: header, which covers the
      ARC-Authentication-Results: header

   o  example.com can use the ARC-Authentication-Results values or
      verify the DKIM-Signature from lists.example.org

   Here's what the message looks like at this point:

 Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
 Received: from example.org (example.org [208.69.40.157])
     by clothilde.example.com with ESMTP id
     d200mr22663000ykb.93.1421363207
     for <fmartin@example.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:02:40 -0800 (PST)
 Authentication-Results: clothilde.example.com; spf=fail
     smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
     header.i=@example.org; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
     s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=N;
     b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
      TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
      EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
 ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;
     d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
     bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
     h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
      List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
     b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF
      1F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3
      A+m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
 Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
     by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
     for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
     (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
 ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.example.org;



OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


     spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
     dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example;
     dmarc=pass
 Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
     (authenticated bits=0)
     by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
     Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
     (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
     s=20130426; t=1421363082;
     bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
     h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
      Content-Transfer-Encoding;
     b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijrvQw
      bv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4Gd3TRJl
      gotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
 Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
 From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
 To: arc@example.org
 Subject: [Lists] Example 1

 Hey gang,
 This is a test message.
 --J.

A.2.  Example 2: Mailing list to forwarded mailbox

A.2.1.  Here's the message as it exits the Origin:






















OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


 Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
 Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
     (authenticated bits=0)
     by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
     Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
     (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
     s=20130426; t=1421363082;
     bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
     h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
      Content-Transfer-Encoding;
     b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijrvQw
      bv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4Gd3TRJl
      gotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
 Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
 From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
 To: arc@example.org
 Subject: Example 1

 Hey gang,
 This is a test message.
 --J.

A.2.2.  Message is then received at example.org

A.2.2.1.  Example 2, Step A: Message forwarded to list members

   Processing at example.org:

   o  example.org performs authentication checks

   o  example.org applies standard DKIM signature

   o  No previous Auth-Results or ARC-Seal headers are present

   o  example.org adds ARC-Auth-Results header

   o  example.org adds usual Received: header

   o  example.org adds a ARC-Seal header

   Here's the message as it exits Step A:








OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
   ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
       s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=N;
       b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz6
        1TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L
        69EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
   ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;
       d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
       bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
       h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
        List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
       b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF
        1F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3
        A+m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
   Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
       by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
       for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
       (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
   ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.example.org;
       spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
       dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example;
       dmarc=pass
   Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
       (authenticated bits=0)
       by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
       Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
       (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
   DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
       s=20130426; t=1421363082;
       bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
       h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
        Content-Transfer-Encoding;
       b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijr
        vQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4G
        d3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
   Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
   Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
   From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
   To: arc@example.org
   Subject: [Lists] Example 1

   Hey gang,
   This is a test message.
   --J.







OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


A.2.2.2.  Example 2, Step B: Message from list forwarded

   The message is delivered to a mailbox at gmail.com
   Processing at gmail.com:

   o  gmail.com performs usual authentication checks

   o  gmail.com adds Auth-Results: and Received: header

   o  Determines that message fails DMARC

   o  Checks for ARC-Seal: header; finds one

   o  Validates the signature in the ARC-Seal: header, which covers the
      ARC-Authentication-Results: header

   o  Uses the ARC-Auth-Results: values, but:

   o  Instead of delivering message, prepares to forward message per
      user settings

   o  Applies usual DKIM signature

   o  gmail.com adds it's own ARC-Seal: header, contents of which are

      *  version

      *  sequence number ("i=2")

      *  hash algorithm (SHA256 as example)

      *  timestamp ("t=")

      *  selector for key ("s=notary01")

      *  domain for key ("d=gmail.com")

      *  headers included in hash ("h=ARC-Authentication-Results:ARC-
         Seal")

      *  Note: algorithm requires only ARC-Seals with lower sequence #
         be included, in ascending order

      *  signature of the header hash

   Here's what the message looks like at this point:

   Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>



OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363253;
       s=notary01; d=gmail.com; cv=V;
       b=sjHDMriRZ0Mui5eVEOGscRHWbQHcy97lvrduHQ8h+f2CfIrxUiKOE44x3LQwDWR
        YbDjf5fcM9MdcIahC+cP59BQ9Y9DHwMDzwRTnM7NVb4kY+tSaVnLoIOaP9lF/sut
        txO+RRNr0fCFw==
   ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256;
       d=gmail.com; s=20120806;
       h=mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender:
        x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:
        list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:reply-to:
        list-unsubscribe:DKIM-Signature;
       bh=2+gZwZhUK2V7JbpoO2MTrU19WvhcA4JnjiohFm9ZZ/g=;
       b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
        TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
        EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0Ab8Oi1ebYV/hIBmfhS
        LF1E80hMPcMijONfTQB6g5Hoh/kE6N2fgp6aSngL/WA3+g3Id8ElhXHvIGcJRFeM
        KdJqiW5cxdqPTRW+BnR5ee6Tzg06kr265NTDIAU8p8fQNuLfZj49MMA+QwDBJtXw
        bQoZyRtb6X6q0mYaszUB8kw==
   Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 19so2728865ykq.10
       for <mailbox@gmail.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:02:45 -0800 (PST)
   Authentication-Results: i=2; gmail.com; spf=fail
       smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
       header.i=@example.org; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
   ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
       s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=N:
       b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
        TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
        EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
   ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;
       d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
       bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
       h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
        List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
       b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF
        1F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3
        A+m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
   Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
       by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
       for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
       (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
   ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.example.org;
       spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
       dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example;
       dmarc=pass
   Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
       (authenticated bits=0)
       by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
       Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)



OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


       (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
   DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
       s=20130426; t=1421363082;
       bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
       h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
        Content-Transfer-Encoding;
       b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijr
        vQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4G
        d3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
   Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
   Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
   From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
   To: arc@example.org
   Subject: [Lists] Example 1

   Hey gang,
   This is a test message.
   --J.

A.2.3.  Example 2: Message received by Recipient

   Let's say that the Recipient is example.com
   Processing at example.com:

   o  example.com performs usual authentication checks

   o  example.com adds Auth-Results: header, Received header

   o  Determines that message fails DMARC

   o  Checks for ARC-Seal: header; finds two

   o  Validates the signature in the highest numbered ("i=2") ARC-Seal:
      header, which covers all previous ARC-Seal: and ARC-
      Authentication-Results: headers

   o  Validates the other ARC-Seal header ("i=1"), which covers the ARC-
      Authentication-Results: header

   o  example.com uses the ARC-Authentication-Results: values

   Here's what the message looks like at this point:

   Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
   Received: from mail-ob0-f188.google.com (mail-ob0-f188.google.com
       [208.69.40.157]) by clothilde.example.com with ESMTP id
       d200mr22663000ykb.93.1421363268
       for <fmartin@example.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:03:15 -0800 (PST)



OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   Authentication-Results: clothilde.example.com; spf=fail
       smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
       header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
   ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363253;
       s=notary01; d=gmail.com; cv=V;
       b=sjHDMriRZ0Mui5eVEOGscRHWbQHcy97lvrduHQ8h+f2CfIrxUiKOE44x3LQwDWR
        YbDjf5fcM9MdcIahC+cP59BQ9Y9DHwMDzwRTnM7NVb4kY+tSaVnLoIOaP9lF/sut
        txO+RRNr0fCFw==
   ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256;
       d=gmail.com; s=20120806;
       h=mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender:
        x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:
        list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:reply-to:
        :list-unsubscribe:DKIM-Signature;
       bh=2+gZwZhUK2V7JbpoO2MTrU19WvhcA4JnjiohFm9ZZ/g=;
       b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
        TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
        EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0Ab8Oi1ebYV/hIBmfhS
        LF1E80hMPcMijONfTQB6g5Hoh/kE6N2fgp6aSngL/WA3+g3Id8ElhXHvIGcJRFeM
        KdJqiW5cxdqPTRW+BnR5ee6Tzg06kr265NTDIAU8p8fQNuLfZj49MMA+QwDBJtXw
        bQoZyRtb6X6q0mYaszUB8kw==
   Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 19so2728865ykq.10
       for <mailbox@gmail.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:02:45 -0800 (PST)
   Authentication-Results: i=2; gmail.com; spf=fail
       smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
       header.i=@example.org; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
   ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
       s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=N;
       b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
        TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
        EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
   ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;
       d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
       bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
       h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
        List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
       b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF
        1F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3
        A+m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
   Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
       by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
       for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
       (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
   ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.example.org;
       spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
       dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example;
       dmarc=pass
   Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])



OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


       (authenticated bits=0)
       by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
       Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
       (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
   DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
       s=20130426; t=1421363082;
       bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
       h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
        Content-Transfer-Encoding;
       b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijr
        vQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4G
        d3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
   Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
   Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
   From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
   To: arc@example.org
   Subject: [Lists] Example 1

   Hey gang,
   This is a test message.
   --J.

A.3.  Example 3: Mailing list to forwarded mailbox with source

A.3.1.  Here's the message as it exits the Origin:


























OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


  Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
  Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
      (authenticated bits=0)
      by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
      Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
      (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
  ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
      s=origin2015; d=d1.example; cv=N;
      b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61T
       X6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69EU
       8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
  ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;
      d=d1.example; s=20130426; t=1421363082;
      bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
      h=MIME-Version:CC:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
      b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijrv
       Qwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4Gd3
       TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
  Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
  Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
  From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
  To: arc@example.org
  Subject: Example 1

  Hey gang,
  This is a test message.
  --J.

A.3.2.  Message is then received at example.org

A.3.2.1.  Example 3, Step A: Message forwarded to list members with
          source

   Processing at example.org:

   o  example.org performs authentication checks

   o  example.org applies standard DKIM signature

   o  Checks for ARC-Seal: header; finds one (i=1)

   o  Validates the signature in the ARC-Seal (i=1): header, which
      covers the d1.example ARC-Message-Signature: header

   o  example.org adds ARC-Auth-Results header

   o  example.org adds usual Received: header




OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   o  example.org adds a DKIM-Signature

   o  example.org adds a ARC-Seal header, contents of which are

      *  sequence number ("i=2")

      *  hash algorithm (SHA256 as example)

      *  timestamp ("t=")

      *  chain validity ("cv=")

      *  selector for key ("s=seal2015")

      *  domain for key ("d=example.org")

      *  signature ("b=")

   Here's the message as it exits Step A:
































OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
   ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
       s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=V;
       b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz6
        1TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L
        69EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
   ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256;
       d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
       bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
       h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
        List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
       b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF
        1F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3
        A+m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
   Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
       by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
       for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
       (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
   ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; lists.example.org;
       spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
       dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example;
       dmarc=pass
   Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
       (authenticated bits=0)
       by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
       Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
       (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
   ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
       s=origin2015; d=d1.example; cv=N;
       b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
        TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
        EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
   ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;
       d=d1.example; s=20130426; t=1421363082;
       bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
       h=MIME-Version:CC:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
       b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijr
        vQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4G
        d3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
   Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
   Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
   From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
   To: arc@example.org
   Subject: [Lists] Example 1

   Hey gang,
   This is a test message.
   --J.



OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


A.3.2.2.  Example 3, Step B: Message from list forwarded with source

   The message is delivered to a mailbox at gmail.com
   Processing at gmail.com:

   o  gmail.com performs usual authentication checks

   o  gmail.com adds Auth-Results: and Received: header

   o  Determines that message fails DMARC

   o  Checks for ARC-Seal: header; finds two

   o  Validates the signature in the ARC-Seal (i=2): header, which
      covers the ARC-Authentication-Results: header

   o  Validates the signature in the ARC-Seal (i=1): header, which
      covers the d1.example ARC-Message-Signature: header

   o  Uses the ARC-Auth-Results: values, but:

   o  Instead of delivering message, prepares to forward message per
      user settings

   o  Applies usual DKIM signature

   o  gmail.com adds it's own ARC-Seal: header, contents of which are

      *  version

      *  sequence number ("i=2")

      *  hash algorithm (SHA256 as example)

      *  timestamp ("t=")

      *  selector for key ("s=notary01")

      *  domain for key ("d=gmail.com")

      *  Note: algorithm requires only ARC-Seals with lower sequence #
         be included, in ascending order

      *  signature of the chain

   Here's what the message looks like at this point:

   Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>



OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   ARC-Seal: i=3; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363253;
       s=notary01; d=gmail.com; cv=V;
       b=sjHDMriRZ0Mui5eVEOGscRHWbQHcy97lvrduHQ8h+f2CfIrxUiKOE44x3LQwD
        WRYbDjf5fcM9MdcIahC+cP59BQ9Y9DHwMDzwRTnM7NVb4kY+tSaVnLoIOaP9lF
        /suttxO+RRNr0fCFw==
   ARC-Message-Signature: i=3; a=rsa-sha256;
       d=gmail.com; s=20120806;
       h=mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender
        :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list
        :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
        :list-unsubscribe:reply-to;
       bh=2+gZwZhUK2V7JbpoO2MTrU19WvhcA4JnjiohFm9ZZ/g=;
       b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz6
        1TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L
        69EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0Ab8Oi1ebYV/hIBm
        fhSLF1E80hMPcMijONfTQB6g5Hoh/kE6N2fgp6aSngL/WA3+g3Id8ElhXHvIGcJ
        RFeMKdJqiW5cxdqPTRW+BnR5ee6Tzg06kr265NTDIAU8p8fQNuLfZj49MMA+QwD
        BJtXwbQoZyRtb6X6q0mYaszUB8kw==
   Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 19so2728865ykq.10
       for <mailbox@gmail.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:02:45 -0800 (PST)
   Authentication-Results: i=3; gmail.com; spf=fail
       smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
       header.i=@example.org; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
   ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
       s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=V;
       b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
        TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
        EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
   ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256;
       d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
       bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
       h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
        List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
       b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF1
        F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3A+
        m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
   Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
       by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
       for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
       (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
   ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; lists.example.org;
       spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
       dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example;
       dmarc=pass
   Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
       (authenticated bits=0)
       by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
       Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)



OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


       (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
   ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
       s=origin2015; d=d1.example; cv=N;
       b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
        TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
        EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
   ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;
       d=d1.example; s=20130426; t=1421363082;
       bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
       h=MIME-Version:CC:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
       b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYij
        rvQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD
        4Gd3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
   Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
   Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
   From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
   To: arc@example.org
   Subject: [Lists] Example 1

   Hey gang,
   This is a test message.
   --J.

A.3.3.  Example 3: Message received by Recipient

   Let's say that the Recipient is example.com
   Processing at example.com:

   o  example.com performs usual authentication checks

   o  example.com adds Auth-Results: header, Received header

   o  Determines that message fails DMARC

   o  Checks for ARC-Seal: header; finds three

   o  Validates the signature in the highest numbered ("i=2") ARC-Seal:
      header, which covers all previous ARC-Seal: and ARC-
      Authentication-Results: headers

   o  Validates the other ARC-Seal header ("i=2"), which covers the ARC-
      Authentication-Results: header

   o  Validates the other ARC-Seal header ("i=1"), which covers the
      d1.example ARC-Message-Signature: header

   o  example.com uses the ARC-Authentication-Results: values




OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   Here's what the message looks like at this point:

Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
Received: from mail-ob0-f188.google.com (mail-ob0-f188.google.com
    [208.69.40.157]) by clothilde.example.com with ESMTP id
    d200mr22663000ykb.93.1421363268
    for <fmartin@example.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: clothilde.example.com; spf=fail
    smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
    header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
ARC-Seal: i=3; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363253;
    s=notary01; d=gmail.com; cv=V;
    b=sjHDMriRZ0Mui5eVEOGscRHWbQHcy97lvrduHQ8h+f2CfIrxUiKOE44x3LQwDW
     RYbDjf5fcM9MdcIahC+cP59BQ9Y9DHwMDzwRTnM7NVb4kY+tSaVnLoIOaP9lF/s
     uttxO+RRNr0fCFw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=3; a=rsa-sha256;
    d=gmail.com; s=20120806;
    h=mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender
     :x-original-authentication-results:precedence
     :mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
     :list-unsubscribe:reply-to;
    bh=2+gZwZhUK2V7JbpoO2MTrU19WvhcA4JnjiohFm9ZZ/g=;
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz6
     1TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L
     69EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0Ab8Oi1ebYV/hIBm
     fhSLF1E80hMPcMijONfTQB6g5Hoh/kE6N2fgp6aSngL/WA3+g3Id8ElhXHvIGcJ
     RFeMKdJqiW5cxdqPTRW+BnR5ee6Tzg06kr265NTDIAU8p8fQNuLfZj49MMA+QwD
     BJtXwbQoZyRtb6X6q0mYaszUB8kw==
Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 19so2728865ykq.10
    for <mailbox@gmail.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:02:45 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: i=3; gmail.com; spf=fail
    smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
    header.i=@example.org; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=V;
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz6
     1TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L
     69EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256;
    d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
    bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
    h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
     List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
    b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF1
     F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3A+
     m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
    by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123



OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


    for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; lists.example.org;
    spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
    dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example;
    dmarc=pass
Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
    (authenticated bits=0)
    by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
    Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=origin2015; d=d1.example; cv=N;
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
     TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
     EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;
    d=d1.example; s=20130426; t=1421363082;
    bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
    h=MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
    b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijr
     vQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4G
     d3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
To: arc@example.org
Subject: [Lists] Example 1

Hey gang,
This is a test message.
--J.

Appendix B.  Acknowledgements

   This draft is the work of OAR-Dev Group.

   The authors thank all of the OAR-Dev group for the ongoing help and
   though-provoking discussions from all the participants, especially:
   Alex Brotman, Brandon Long, Dave Crocker, Elizabeth Zwicky, Franck
   Martin, Greg Colburn, J.  Trent Adams, John Rae-Grant, Mike Hammer,
   Mike Jones, Steve Jones, Terry Zink, Tim Draegen.

   Grateful appreciation is extended to the people who provided feedback
   through the discuss mailing list.






OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


Appendix C.  Comments and Feedback

   Please address all comments, discussions, and questions to arc-
   discuss@dmarc.org [1][mailto:arc-discuss@dmarc.org].

Appendix D.  Historical Note

   The ARC-Authentication-Results header is a direct copy of the normal
   Authentication-Results header ([RFC7601]) used in a similar fashion
   as that proposed in [OAR] but has the instance (i=) value added to
   provide correlation within the set of ARC headers.

Authors' Addresses

   OAR-DEV Group

   Email: arc-discuss@dmarc.org


   Kurt Andersen
   LinkedIn
   2029 Stierlin Ct.
   Mountain View, California  94043
   USA

   Email: kurta@linkedin.com


   John Rae-Grant (editor)
   Google

   Email: johnrg@google.com


   Brandon Long (editor)
   Google

   Email: blong@google.com


   J. Trent Adams (editor)
   Paypal

   Email: trent.adams@paypal.com







OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft                     ARC                        April 2016


   Steven Jones (editor)
   TDP

   Email: smj@crash.com















































OAR-DEV Group, et al.    Expires October 6, 2016               [Page 38]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/