Re: [dmarc-ietf] not ADSP, was is DMARC informational?

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 08 December 2020 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@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 E51863A0D7B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:27:59 -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 hkoeupJWtoNm for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com (mail-oi1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]) (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 91A883A0D43 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:27:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id s2so8270442oij.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 17:27:55 -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=SKFn3lV8+AP1Gf5z0v/D0Zg7X5Vp/D+c2ducSNfkAEY=; b=TCNl0sKhDyUOgq0JlVoCDmOdGU/GoupU6UMBVnEK3kOAiInrtmncigGGEb9jF6h+0x 2bynsC7AulrH9w5oqRiSL9pWPqnsYntlut23+RrEYmBIwVfM4TFuQj0yWcuoyL6WwPMP Hdz7x52a8iV5gVUdJ+fe7ZEEzZqstfe+cuDEF80sVRgVsV6YlxZpmj/sr9LUEXEy0Lfu 1O/+P33UaiUQ+7/vbHzHb9Ja+YLRycaxg9l8xIrRP01+kCQPorrhFCxut85zoFvpVKz8 0ZhSON7q2RKzXCRAcQj6P1IvAsjTs52Cc28fNtL/2OTk4YK9+i+SxS4aIzaOFXfa88Uc c00w==
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=SKFn3lV8+AP1Gf5z0v/D0Zg7X5Vp/D+c2ducSNfkAEY=; b=BdHaA82aLduKk6kFQ1XeH3ch9O8DjqX0WvxAP/OXpHBtsqwm5/2PKzQ38bcb5RiZ2g BomdlP+PpddWA6iAA8zuiZbtHovhDZTGhkPEALreCBozDlRGL0kjFz+rglAJkrUuNlfA L5hiQPJll6RSougJ92AWPNiUBNToKZf2tvHKKnOoaf/ObTObNKftQMjFT+K1zcmNbO9/ SGzMo9onehCRhM1Gc77kIWt+4mb5BHXWy/ZnbRifLVDw8W/xaa/o0aw4TmLbjfqVIM4j 1px078K0yh2pgDFckxuRUL1ZxhieDrCKW/7GcSFIZGgeavtrMCvfbfHg8QITmhSRy5OI iB6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530hhEWpmK6AAdQiQkreSFLJa+3VAKt/Q2f8GzT6IMO9IByhiUTr S88aKZySWOvZSV/va/Yc4fahnR8mdUA4YlMpspo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqiTUqI+KBNkcTs0zDX7wGk22SRFMRnX9a5Gc8++fz4QAhBdDqMH8N4F4MIoQwUoyTAtmEQrlN1rqiII/dAf8=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:c3c6:: with SMTP id t189mr1132180oif.21.1607390874975; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 17:27:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201207051846.CBEEE291CC3F@ary.qy> <e4db313a-630b-32e9-f3bb-00baf5e8e884@mtcc.com> <7a992502-349c-45a0-ac2a-9ec33aa98035@www.fastmail.com> <347c3c91-476b-a2d1-57c7-a68435fbbf9e@mtcc.com> <CADyWQ+EzLhDnLCen2gQ-Mg=JhV=tjDzEJaGEpEXiYPAd6n-qWg@mail.gmail.com> <0a562853-dae7-5e7e-f4a8-0c609da9a429@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <0a562853-dae7-5e7e-f4a8-0c609da9a429@mtcc.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 20:27:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+Gqv-SYmtAJWXq5oEnvNRnXFH6KHLrG4EdhnNU27S45ww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001e405d05b5e9daee"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/FkczDUf1KO-eFCLRzhM4P-_3rSM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] not ADSP, was 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: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 01:28:04 -0000

There are a number of open issues and you open more.
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/report/1

I think it is being serialized for lack of people and also WG energy.

tim

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 8:20 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 12/7/20 5:15 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> A good section of our charter is collection Operational experiences. Doing
> an Operational BCP on DMARC based on data collected is what the WG should
> do after DMARC-bis.
>
> I guess I don't understand why this should be serialized. When I read over
> DMARC I completely recognized ADSP/SSP with the addition of SPF policy and
> reporting. I wouldn't expect a whole lot of changes beyond wordsmithing and
> some nits around the edges. If this is really because large mail providers
> have started using p=reject, that seems to be pushing off the actual
> payload way down the line. Standards track is not going to change this
> much, IMO.
>
> Mike
>
>