Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Michael Thomas <> Sun, 06 December 2020 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E0B3A046D for <>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:20:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VWVI70Hdbnxn for <>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:20:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E75203A046A for <>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 11so1201107pfu.4 for <>; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:20:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=PZkcE/n0f6zr2tKKrYzHCbga1EzQy168ij+ZYcuysCo=; b=hAjRPpbJJFzf6e1ksyDGHITd1IbQhixRyByRw5hXSDVx8Ap7QZa8DIaHMjkxYM2m0n FR5d3lh6do/CCZw0wBbe8gCq/CDTz2pkIhQNZBtuWJXyGQyRMW2Voj0Sx6Dw9NmGqPe+ bV8Ok3DFBdalCTaCGKBdDtyrNufF58axwQUFyHb/99yELzccx/KVSxG/c1+WI32geiny EprQqIqq7krieNGuAm7NhJAiUSZ0rQLTHDS7Q5h+uN4uvHLIIUXhiERcnmRGWvCQ8tzf dRBwQjJmayBkT2iGi09JPXM3V9bocWhb/dmZhD/LlNPL78U0RhtFc0i2+Xl9BQdq0fZz bR1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=PZkcE/n0f6zr2tKKrYzHCbga1EzQy168ij+ZYcuysCo=; b=RkINMFerl1eqGgn12pnafK0aVNmcEKXISyL5HVExdje/E9Yg5P2r4h8s2Usm+NF1uK 0rhYuzBEMImgLJ8izcAAPnjWou42+9uR1Vk1anUED7+0qm7UE37B0qkdfuNU4sRxau23 tONVvoPbF9++vhWRt6meeU9u8rDfznqXxW0gdxrje2aXZ3xs8GcvCp14UXsLKr7L4r4J zatThirruKuhXXsCfcDt7IeEV4WEKtmBJyOCrqJSGGT8Pmdu6u+DrX2v7EgWtXFUJVhq 9DquUpErAa6eUO9U2RccnB7sHYgYibSy2lUQZ14C5PTXrqgTpwitctlZuuJn/ZL/ThWf JhhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531GJTno8+rybpzx+3Vbawl97FhY3Cuk3Eezz/tyOPMUkiMs+I7m XHCFPZfIrEUp3inSEwiXS5KBjy7kAltnUw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyV3+uLMfWtJCmEGToZ03FAAf6GbOB/ms0TcGmqBaObXnm2UnMHpMFIxwwgqpRUY6LJaIBTdA==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:6a4e:: with SMTP id o14mr15371109pgu.65.1607275236006; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id m17sm1636241pgi.11.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:20:35 -0800 (PST)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:20:33 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------50A047D3BE537E5D76B6F817"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 17:20:39 -0000

On 12/6/20 7:13 AM, Dotzero wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 8:58 AM Murray S. Kucherawy 
> < <>> wrote:
>     On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 5:09 AM Alessandro Vesely <
>     <>> 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.
> Murray, your recollection isn't quite accurate. The group advancing 
> DMARC was looking to preserve the installed base for a defined period 
> of time due to a) almost all the implementations were custom code and 
> b) there was a desire to see more experience in the wild as almost all 
> of the deployments were by members of the group advancing DMARC. There 
> was also a political element in that there were folks within IETF that 
> felt the DMARC folks were only looking for a rubber stamp, nothing 
> more. This resulted in part of the pushback.

What I still don't understand is what drove the decision to deviate from 
ADSP. From reading through DMARC, it's basically ADSP nee SSP with 
provisions for SPF and the new reporting feature. SPF had its own policy 
at the time, but adding it and the reporting could have been done in the 
context of an ADSP-bis. Had I been paying attention, I certainly would 
have supported adding both of those features because they clearly make 
getting to the end goal better.