Re: [dmarc-ietf] not ADSP, was is DMARC informational?

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Tue, 08 December 2020 01:20 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 D7A543A0D42 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:20:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.651 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] 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 W0GqHBuO5i3R for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:20:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) (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 A9F133A0D2B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:20:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id w6so12254899pfu.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 17:20:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=dv4Y+9Gv4R7WoGkP2ElxSri/1PHlABJcwyYpWuqa2bk=; b=W9x9Q3ZggESIVz8xN9oUD4Jz0zVzGONwUaRfq2QzA4VMTChcAihSD+dewLdK6wKqSB xQTDlzr/MtMvmucvxCmNfaK2LR2tDwmP3ViKHlEu1Km6Hv2a5+P9OJIbleBjDvAWxq/X /iNVyATbTnQ9uGJNAt6tFdjMUblNYYDiM74uQdGfxwvuzoaeJArlzZgosX5MvD0d9B8M alqLSpg6ff1bOnnzXOQc3evEFjHwYCoBgLLIME1hnSMGsGL+XQ0fk9DcQ0hINr4IZfGl Gg29Bw0kENMOZAYUlIfRvYhwfW7C2xxh3lReMmKHIrVF9oEzywqBeZjHMad59SeqJyBS rrfg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=dv4Y+9Gv4R7WoGkP2ElxSri/1PHlABJcwyYpWuqa2bk=; b=IOxHcwVU9P8uK+uPWoFujGtodOYXbbP61TjHgC22QjWuajYUpV09EsIBctBpFuDYZi CU8c/unEqn2TFsC+oSkT6j84zWiZ21b1/jgwSP1uD/p0ILL1nY79suyE0WX3S1323Uc9 3nwbwmA6Ry5rMrzor7/u+hg0KRBe7SHJ739vezVEp77ZYr1ZzLNP8xeFcLFosmczqz1F fWp/lDvvNvi3+I9k8WqTO+T87pAEfGz74GRBesFghsGQF7LWtk/SPQ8HpKML0gRETsnM vlYLebnHX32ovcJ7j83sI1wlAhnSudCq+1MovmZg5maAOepma8UyrnPrv/Nv9kkqdXq6 Glsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532BcgPISv560T63SD0c+23hrd/NNTpbSX5R3Gac60QeakqmK5of Nnup3mez925potROrCv9Zm5k0590GPIV+Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzpGJCC2QtvBHfIdSNpdZS7BfsOgh6Fea1jM2r7JailuhIGv+CH+lbP2kouncCAVtAx/fKi/Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:a783:: with SMTP id f3mr1562748pjq.138.1607390437394; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 17:20:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-41-154.volcanocom.com. [107.182.41.154]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x6sm12645103pgr.20.2020.12.07.17.20.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Dec 2020 17:20:36 -0800 (PST)
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <20201207051846.CBEEE291CC3F@ary.qy> <e4db313a-630b-32e9-f3bb-00baf5e8e884@mtcc.com> <7a992502-349c-45a0-ac2a-9ec33aa98035@www.fastmail.com> <347c3c91-476b-a2d1-57c7-a68435fbbf9e@mtcc.com> <CADyWQ+EzLhDnLCen2gQ-Mg=JhV=tjDzEJaGEpEXiYPAd6n-qWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <0a562853-dae7-5e7e-f4a8-0c609da9a429@mtcc.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:20:35 -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: <CADyWQ+EzLhDnLCen2gQ-Mg=JhV=tjDzEJaGEpEXiYPAd6n-qWg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------658BE1F7854E7589A1220F33"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/awAnyG83GrQbUposZGdDGt_o4VM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] not ADSP, was 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: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 01:20:40 -0000

On 12/7/20 5:15 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> A good section of our charter is collection Operational experiences. 
> Doing an Operational BCP on DMARC based on data collected is what the 
> WG should do after DMARC-bis.

I guess I don't understand why this should be serialized. When I read 
over DMARC I completely recognized ADSP/SSP with the addition of SPF 
policy and reporting. I wouldn't expect a whole lot of changes beyond 
wordsmithing and some nits around the edges. If this is really because 
large mail providers have started using p=reject, that seems to be 
pushing off the actual payload way down the line. Standards track is not 
going to change this much, IMO.

Mike