Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sun, 06 December 2020 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 0257E3A0DDF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 05:58:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 (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 gO7PgvGv5y_7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 05:57:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa31.google.com (mail-vk1-xa31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a31]) (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 E27623A0DD7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 05:57:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa31.google.com with SMTP id w190so2461869vkg.13 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 05:57:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=d81OMYSULrcsveOyXA2H2zxZtFeaVZnxlNiihpAddb4=; b=KgCpRMtOwgtjP0sCAMSR2VK3Yk55jkXvwXPtb4KwA5dEPQjHGA5fP5sQ61duwGtwTJ RA9Kykru57lGiCOLPdmaSeHgWJ8ET76+OnZ+SCygUT1Yr+z8ROWf5FPGUONNlNCpCiR+ Rb3jHrub4guUcP/LcVTJ6Nen/if0raE6gy+PK/JWptOud6RzlxRMsNVnEkNvHnweySq9 sDRg5sfnENQG3b71TBMREUwc3VVJPkYHDOpm1UFIzWOu4ZtKvbnrv1+ADW02sSXe/Sye zLYTlIsOHpzV0sqnQvTudW+zsNXnzXM21wH+Eb+db2P9gwduoYwdjIJjYVlu7eNX3mkq ZzOg==
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=d81OMYSULrcsveOyXA2H2zxZtFeaVZnxlNiihpAddb4=; b=JoJZ1qEpbEWa/FNmbxejyjbj1g0LvMHwNHF3uAPTbqfB4sWY2FRBrJXZwmn51886Ol +J9k7NpP1tm2LC6bdvEEMJ/ONA9I+cUTRafM+rj8hQk3XiXnWGjugsKM9l1FxVRbTMOZ LBpAQtIT8GpLgJ0xTMEk1kDQL9WDd8F2HXYD75QBRats5Rj01NDVoyPcN14y6tD5Q58C wx+rWrpxxM5/M3qXO4ZGH9xiQ/qpEAKvPEWX/K7Ip8RATDkONZlIGWDQnv/xF8DLTbFO FrOOAf6/ix9XDxn2+yuQbliS+NLhlv8+uTATGdD+vFWmUjCBn2WcyEpW8hrjf+prb7Ox HF5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533qUyensCfLlBQjQB42GBdbkHiSr8MdrK2AiOe4Jk+ULTEQWbcV PYWYm4NKR1fNS9sAUUxC6hU8gJbfD77b/5WWneoJu2QC
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdIxqFKuQup8SPQvEQ2s4G5sHxPcFnwEftXZLDFCivEiu8XlndPOf2vUkZYCpADC/4fsyqpIZAGyNGQvMAdHY=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:1b82:: with SMTP id b124mr10162651vkb.5.1607263076785; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 05:57:56 -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> <CABuGu1qpn16+=6CUqpXbAiFrLV87s9Lx4+fqCzNtkD83HVPzEQ@mail.gmail.com> <C456270E-89A3-48BD-B123-1D789682AEBE@bluepopcorn.net> <18e93db9-bde7-bf49-670c-1e680f2ce3a6@tana.it> <65bbc2a6-701a-1729-7892-ef68c1b6b237@mtcc.com> <5bce5710-6553-36ee-c46e-cbde702141e5@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <5bce5710-6553-36ee-c46e-cbde702141e5@tana.it>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 05:57:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZZ31bYwPphHEDsfeLCRPEZmp7jOZOR5RVof3J5LHxe6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c0a1a505b5cc186c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5UlGAy3hvN2LvsZ7LXv1HLsg-ak>
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: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 13:58:04 -0000

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 5:09 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On chartering the WG in 2013, the decision was made to publish DMARC as
> independent submission, even though it was going to be discussed and reach
> consensus of a IETF WG.  AIUI, that was the original question of this
> thread.
>

This isn't correct.  DMARC was not published as a product of this working
group.  It was published through the Independent Submission stream, which
can only produce Informational documents.  At the time, this was because
the group advancing DMARC wanted to preserve the installed base and not
cede change control to the IETF, so a working group was not an option.

The working group and the ISE submission started their journies almost at
the same time, but they were procedurally independent.

-MSK, ART AD