Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> Sun, 06 December 2020 03:33 UTC

Return-Path: <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
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 C4B723A0C61 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 19:33:19 -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, 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=bluepopcorn.net
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 h7LD0fTOvjL1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 19:33:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from v2.bluepopcorn.net (v2.bluepopcorn.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a994::2]) (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 7CB3D3A0AB4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 19:33:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bluepopcorn.net; s=supersize; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0X68cydDcmm57O5CJi14Pvava98aTbGwirIvk1lhQLM=; b=m/QoZyIJk3j82mjN7VGC83pUA t3xIOBKzTRDas3NEA0koj/XKihovZQdrjas1wj/VX8P0vvIwINDuriIdAxVKrjqlPpA4UU2nOUlZn w/FYzMzYYcbRY4AKjni0q+YAVf1ZgTJO+4Yc88DPAfZaoSgah5tKsQR1mN3A/MetJzJmk=;
Received: from [2601:647:4400:1261:7d1c:9b45:21bd:630e] (helo=[10.10.20.144]) by v2.bluepopcorn.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>) id 1klknS-000536-2S; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 19:33:14 -0800
From: "Jim Fenton" <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
To: "Kurt Andersen" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Cc: "Michael Thomas" <mike@mtcc.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 19:33:13 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <C456270E-89A3-48BD-B123-1D789682AEBE@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1qpn16+=6CUqpXbAiFrLV87s9Lx4+fqCzNtkD83HVPzEQ@mail.gmail.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/BOtmUyJDycxBFUGtzYy3ZwhsuvU>
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 03:33:20 -0000

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.

-Jim