Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sun, 06 December 2020 17:27 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 534483A0762 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:27:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 TkQLDzFd7aAt for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:27:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (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 C6DF23A0656 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:27:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id n7so6858588pgg.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:27:33 -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-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=69FpotgaSEKM8OujuXlzM6R9pcS8uRG+2OnniJ8DgfY=; b=v4Ls3cvLT+INPsKoOZ44/tWT1UCCFFY/GK0/JQWkugUTkKW+nlhwIDM3uU6U7LnnEA mNrgEhUaHmDP8Q0iERtdkK6y8nfVh2Lx4Rbtr3lw/ICVkcHQhM1/rAFfuctgybDhRqMS Kg5XPa2njHiJj+7v2zQESwKF1Nsb7QaiY6pSwxrCEwIxmme/4LgwamamPKUA5pDtjYgP tG00AnwzJHnPkDIFtH4LHzT8z04eudTMeB0XkYbjqVR/YJ5I68uepK93mDd4eIEOmhkI lduIXSNRCMQNIZ3SCNnDmCnIyx2GmJuWJw0Fx0Whx/HJ/l81peSaGUrCU1AjuNMw6RwD gUTQ==
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-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=69FpotgaSEKM8OujuXlzM6R9pcS8uRG+2OnniJ8DgfY=; b=uBX55cD3S7CqkNrkNtOkwe3Xo/6lj9xzMKGv930dYTMNBLZ7IyaNGdvwtOCwuYUs70 0K4uXNpsFAG+AtRg1kooVhmjvBll7J/Yu7MOaLJtVg8baAZNMK3fWEP5+w4Qg7TB75H8 dZdGaSXr266hA9WDRiIpcR7ZeyzhZnTepE1oZHdWWkPpN0Albf0EE7zZeSycrH6MK+Uz sQBPv2yTEOxtB/oqhJIKh+xUhrOTKAquc66zAGCjW5wW/BuxQQVIvTGGjvTSR3m+58mv YN2wIGZ+tlVX5rbsEpkQx+G/WsC4qhZKj2rikc3A3B3GVWQt9Q1mgO1HfFXwHifiTSYx g+Dw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ffSxPSeepnzscWM7WgqBk350YAAz12f6QYhOPbchtV23TEHPN P69/6pX4yYoDqr512VlumbMgae1mOwZGfw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy3Zjw2fcHncUesnZEJ9GAWD0ZY/l9NV8bkvSdZZL12receiQ/B66c6+oQTqhtfQeTvNGTtJQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:da0a:: with SMTP id c10mr15299338pgh.145.1607275652778; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p7sm11448633pfn.56.2020.12.06.09.27.31 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:27:32 -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> <CAJ4XoYc890qRpWq4gz6HTxGO0Uu515SLFkMf3D6vKJry8puVRw@mail.gmail.com> <8961245c-4d0f-a39a-066b-7d8e96e8468d@gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <1f2d40d2-b48b-309e-becc-38c7dcdd79d0@mtcc.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:27:30 -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: <8961245c-4d0f-a39a-066b-7d8e96e8468d@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/VDOTG6p1w1F9BJ3EqDLNGapBrSA>
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 17:27:35 -0000

On 12/6/20 7:23 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 12/6/2020 7:13 AM, Dotzero wrote:
>> The group advancing DMARC was looking to preserve the installed base 
>> for a defined period of time
>
> Work that comes to the IETF often has a significant history before 
> that, often including a well-developed specification and significant 
> installed base.
>
> It is not uncommon to publish that pre-IETF specification as an RFC, 
> to establish the formal background for the prior work. That's what was 
> done for DMARC.
>
> The political -- and, IMO, technical -- issues at the time merely 
> served to delay seeking standards track for a revised specification, 
> which is what is now being pursued.  While this amount of delay is 
> unusual, the sequence is not.
>
7 years and counting, 9 years from inception, 12 years from ADSP, and 16 
years from SSP certainly speaks volumes as to why people would prefer to 
avoid sclerotic ietf process. At best, ietf is a discovery mechanism for 
interesting emerging network protocols, not an arbiter of when they are 
actually usable.

Mike