Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 12/6/20 7:13 AM, Dotzero wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 8:58 AM Murray S. Kucherawy 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 5:09 AM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.

Mike