Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sun, 06 December 2020 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 66B2D3A02C1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:06:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 4OWa1Y5h4GAE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:06:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x534.google.com (mail-pg1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) (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 1528C3A02BC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:06:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x534.google.com with SMTP id w4so6794482pgg.13 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:06:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=2SC/bGTMVVmhjIV9WfmgJlWS9BtkKiyT0msJsbJhfDY=; b=Esb7siPR8XosdTIDOrxO2uP9qWfbaJdNZTT7kJ0ZnoLboVj3TzB6QWvzrFsZUrut1d 3efB/vTLOb3uRNEG5X8o0g96g+J9BYRZ2Ant5mhWJ8jMvZHj8WHb046XmhA/AOm3wkSI B8ru/Kh2l+EPAJc4VYjwV4RN9cAeE6cGIamO+/kPkXZKvf5/spMpCA8DC0/4qmXKRT4U Zfwo5BmrvXSTzEgiV6pPNWz850eOTidwrOiSslvhHPEaDsuaWK00gI5QyAo+q0AKrVqN CXNAjcWacw7R8xiV/0BOfRNpVdYb14Q0JHzURmK246dBMfI5i1PFeNMQlXGi4HpXyfoi mUYA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=2SC/bGTMVVmhjIV9WfmgJlWS9BtkKiyT0msJsbJhfDY=; b=RgpNHzSY3xmTaH6+alu4CAgtao/soO8hwvXBEFe4RNRBIidJpvxDIaGkZRX+gbn97W RfMtJ3gS5vZs8fWXCTf4uO63pG5G0FVAYZlAa4Efo/XrNVwFbZ/kYgN+JGNZEYVlGoru ew5IvHcirdbxGqWihRArbQzp1Lz7MLW+BKnb3ld3ciJIZfD5RNCxsf8N0wTFT311SCaZ cXECTZRXDuX1FzdGlamJp0kVIgQD+x0slAAxEC13H3HsnrpSNiCmrr4n3lPtdi1lDx33 RUW7S9av/M3CquImtBPYiMJ7Jh62mjFE3x27penh1sIF+YvKVPtenKfXxHF7SK42tL+e V0Bg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530xTofCbZs0YdjMQ7bUqLyhacqtxCuhzx/7Z1Houi51jTRjHsvz 9Qc5MijZoqUYjDWRKyxQHiv8QiwgqXVoLg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzt/3SwCBXyLv4rGaoV2/GQ4n9/9dUETE9PR5CunXhNh8WKm6i+ZT1jYQBZKqKqr/IFii2OPg==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:63da:: with SMTP id n26mr15232699pgv.306.1607274406662; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:06:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q7sm11252489pfh.91.2020.12.06.09.06.45 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:06:46 -0800 (PST)
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> <5bce5710-6553-36ee-c46e-cbde702141e5@tana.it> <CAL0qLwZZ31bYwPphHEDsfeLCRPEZmp7jOZOR5RVof3J5LHxe6w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <7d8e0e8c-2186-e1ff-c72e-01131ba09e08@mtcc.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:06:44 -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: <CAL0qLwZZ31bYwPphHEDsfeLCRPEZmp7jOZOR5RVof3J5LHxe6w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------59673F3F6EAA8B7BC9C0F5EE"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/SKrMa-rwso9dtNAewgaKJqJudZE>
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 17:06:49 -0000

On 12/6/20 5:57 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 5:09 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it 
> <mailto:vesely@tana.it>> 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.
>
> The working group and the ISE submission started their journies almost 
> at the same time, but they were procedurally independent.
>

Would that these two responses been the only replies to my question.

Mike