Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Fri, 04 December 2020 23:00 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 7AF903A1003 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:00:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 (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 BRRm2-amUrgn for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:00:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x131.google.com (mail-il1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (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 6FEB63A0FF9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:00:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x131.google.com with SMTP id v3so6701962ilo.5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:00:31 -0800 (PST)
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=hjfmX6TmEgzQXABrb0zSMquacEn2WkAKRM07HIBjaVY=; b=gPdbX8famTNuEfQxFpDH5VU0WvKpi9qWZCk5jUwZkDRa3BWCRyZuSSDIYXtjwebBlw Qq2+aBf0MHMJuKIezKX5yBtfY9wC//8NmcBdkPkn5yCAkjHdIAa2Kige+rNhQQlIDxqT jn6+IGvoct1hoVLmwbse9BMIbw9YgYdbjrtzw=
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=hjfmX6TmEgzQXABrb0zSMquacEn2WkAKRM07HIBjaVY=; b=ckfti5t6i7XjqMKhb0FhwVCeUHYOtM4bVUugMZzN0GWeZUIBDuuLt7mC33KzZ5bohv wiSgE5hwEP1MkTedJ365Bf3Ffiwgi1OiorkHqLDEAUGXyEIBRerSDD2JlYn3eToSMpgu 1n88cv5etfde6hRXLcuDKzE1mp3ttrV14YIsxS1BqQWOX+8VeYzA3eS3WnSePC+dwKtq +Yy8NllwCU5erARPiGaScRGQMXMnBMR75qWfFBLNVpF5fYXV1Rej8UPcgBgrKnm0Bksx Tkj3WaeTObMWXa2JMLWh71TT7VLwp0D/pJL/JQZqV7PR3oaIbxmWZGTD1dKTC52h29uY 7xVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532t94LzvXZfBAtDQcukVykXQyDUA4CH7nDEHP5VQqKIC8JFyewc IdHAcOwvkvgD0hDf18aocSg6JWqmkXOrYKUVl0pGew==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxBRnFpezBOpGzz382DSjug/1yYrhwnjjQCq618C/uDGpPxjYfrW0YYpA7eJuTmNviOaCjadreOEXtJR8dTt3o=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:d2cc:: with SMTP id w12mr9545593ilg.120.1607122830581; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:00:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <5a577765-4a0d-e1bf-5321-dfeff19d107e@gmail.com> <40d7e78e-7026-c65c-383c-df4e3c537de3@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <40d7e78e-7026-c65c-383c-df4e3c537de3@mtcc.com>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:00:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CABuGu1qpn16+=6CUqpXbAiFrLV87s9Lx4+fqCzNtkD83HVPzEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006d6f3e05b5ab7155"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/2bAt5if6ODwyjN0HoR369oil6HQ>
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 23:00:34 -0000

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:51 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> What changed in the bis version to change its intended status?
>

The entire point of this working group (and the bis version that is in
progress) is to move DMARC into the fully-recognized "standards" track.
Note that even the current email specs are not "standards" in IETF parlance
(there's another WG addressing that). It's mostly organizational semantic
slicing-and-dicing.

--Kurt