Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Fri, 04 December 2020 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.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 20C453A1142 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:49:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=gmail.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 f89i3ivfqlUk for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:49:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42a.google.com (mail-pf1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a]) (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 EDD253A1172 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id o9so4761124pfd.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:49:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=ybdtfrHSyGJgE8scT/9OS7DBOlzOTadc/5DHv9y/eq4=; b=IwSH8RrI5LEY4qobnDKT+VXVgNFj8zYq53R/+y/iPPBqdFXSKUWj12WUVNqIbcNgGb ixdMwbQXXzTmljPQ2d2eB27zTFg9EiSt2oxBXUvEdBRzRIq51E4GuqL8e0G3loNNQ8Rc S1ku/OfqBDzJK5BWQQvDftCG6BLsES7GOZ7BoVV0HYb5yQYxELLUadUTpQtOIfyv4E3K 92JpuqOloKa3uJUINNaLtoRDtgsGkwXrWLwGZqGpKhu+zY7ffhYLj7iE1f0JuF13d408 Ct0mZXcHvbiwj7wOZ4TWuQ3MqJZwZs08k915/0tnt5xdFUw8e/jHMqNpFFuG4vdsUV8F XtPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=ybdtfrHSyGJgE8scT/9OS7DBOlzOTadc/5DHv9y/eq4=; b=KMctGkTradAQ1f4Gf/zha0O75hDkqjStN6fp06299QHOkukIUWSQnbJQJtiFrzipXe 3fyDsb/qwgZN7Dfi5Rk2LNbIPWlYpE+uqA+EoGCjJvA81OVmi0jeVKi1vQT3AqTyyJtV aJT/iMoVPia1PXuuDx3i9Yua7UI6QL87LNGnOWgvupViQJJGbwYTsEB0affp3g3LK6Da fXxr4yAGrNeX8CW+KlJ/NL9m/gqW/23ORNmK4mTWv8bXCoUFJU2DdYIrw25GZ41WD8gZ gzSYlNWYQ8hgJ6eBzV7iO0Nkx/oWwHLZAEw8hetQtDxZWa6czu6Xqfcz1VZQsbkecFA8 4RCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533EQ9VRv7wtfegCqv2nP5dRRqQBO1BGxBGFStuoeRNUQyry0xV6 IJi+gaI51z4xJLYj0iAIgE5nVCliV3Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOfhk9r8ajIo+JEl/WCFOFlbseekzkIJH7Xtu3tCsiKElixaf0dBHfKEktW0b7QwOrVWlITQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:f20e:0:b029:197:f6d8:8d4d with SMTP id m14-20020a62f20e0000b0290197f6d88d4dmr5828793pfh.58.1607122141318; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.109] (c-24-130-62-181.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.130.62.181]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 3sm6149355pfh.166.2020.12.04.14.49.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:49:00 -0800 (PST)
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <134860ee-5fbf-2fb3-a5b3-4be68806ab22@mtcc.com> <CABa8R6veBqY1fUuoy3Qm=vfrV51_5YyoS0P4SLSbKJP_Qrcn-A@mail.gmail.com> <7224575d-685f-5020-073e-c1880acecc88@mtcc.com> <7e459496-61f8-ddcd-713c-3b6be448090c@gmail.com> <2cecceac-1add-44ec-6e16-e157fee293fe@mtcc.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5a577765-4a0d-e1bf-5321-dfeff19d107e@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:48:59 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2cecceac-1add-44ec-6e16-e157fee293fe@mtcc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/0kaSCSx3Qqu6sju4Ha2idzES1Vk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?
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, 04 Dec 2020 22:49:20 -0000

On 12/4/2020 2:45 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> yes, but the new version was standards track. that's what i'm finding 
> surprising. 

Perhaps you should review the intended status for the current working 
group documents, such as dmarcbis:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/documents/


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
dcrocker@gmail.com
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
dave.crocker2@redcross.org