Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 06 December 2020 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 943E23A0D21 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 04:42:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 T-CtL-qLKou9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 04:42:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8C353A0D04 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 04:42:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1607258532; bh=aN73WwW3a/5p/ikoNPlD5E3ExVGxIw12iizBx7mFn6o=; l=1230; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BlFuYFJZ1IL5LcvhJQwAHdzgSCKIZ9sg4KqxPiIxKYIh1kRKEE7h/SkiCsXIgrIlo NLrfy4UabtOa1aQgk3Zp37eNp75KXuTtdjThC+n3OsiWL7hEa2XPdKV5ewE6euOhK8 yaPTmQaZmYq0kOrsZCiTwqqxfGeFTegHM2AuLn4v//a5cKVDzKXfsyof+62o+
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC03D.000000005FCCD1A4.0000423D; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 13:42:12 +0100
To: 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> <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>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <18e93db9-bde7-bf49-670c-1e680f2ce3a6@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 13:42:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C456270E-89A3-48BD-B123-1D789682AEBE@bluepopcorn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/8pm9xrKCg_-sjyD7MmwxUbwRgdU>
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 12:42:19 -0000

On Sun 06/Dec/2020 04:33:13 +0100 Jim Fenton wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2020, at 15:00, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>
> The current email specs (specifically RFC 5321 and 5322) are Draft Standard, 
> which is part of Standards Track. There is an enormous difference between 
> Informational and Standards Track in terms of the amount of vetting and 
> consensus required for approval. From RFC 2026:
>
>     An "Informational" specification is published for the general information
>     of the Internet community, and does not represent an Internet community
>     consensus or recommendation.


However, discussion and consensus which led to RFC 7489 were not much different 
from the process that is taking place now.  This mailing list started in April 
2013.

Previous discussion took place elsewhere.  There is still a 2011 draft at:
https://dmarc.org/draft-dmarc-base-00-01.txt



Best
Ale
--