Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Sun 06/Dec/2020 13:46:58 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 12/6/20 4:42 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> 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
>>
> And SSP was started in 2004. What's your point?


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.


Best
Ale
--