Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 06 December 2020 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 A65953A0D4C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 05:08:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 zF1t3zgn3iSg for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 05:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 B64DE3A0D64 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 05:08:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1607260132; bh=HvTeD3aM4xAMnZs8IyKCfMwzKVYB8efcHFb3G5ZH9jc=; l=1700; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Bmu1Rskb6uPDPwchCL9A/rUnWAiZYfROE1PEjX+tP1xV3Ub9SeqU2GPXYkVit0sTP 9Dre6AImC6jA73Q6oNyw5itzDBmQPNGlP88DiwRAwVl/lRh1DuCm5nN6YeGL67ifVB slBF/sHtTtMWvOvqQvGFtGc0TxYoxIDRtMGVeTX3OYZxxeUYUM+IC/xRDyMfh
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0C3.000000005FCCD7E4.000044EB; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 14:08:52 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
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> <C456270E-89A3-48BD-B123-1D789682AEBE@bluepopcorn.net> <18e93db9-bde7-bf49-670c-1e680f2ce3a6@tana.it> <65bbc2a6-701a-1729-7892-ef68c1b6b237@mtcc.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <5bce5710-6553-36ee-c46e-cbde702141e5@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 14:08:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <65bbc2a6-701a-1729-7892-ef68c1b6b237@mtcc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/MOWWsgYF-v0hajFc-vlPGmPU_Zc>
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 13:08:57 -0000

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
--