Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Dotzero <> Sun, 06 December 2020 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179523A0E65 for <>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 07:13:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ujXoIfaPl4rc for <>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 07:13:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3802E3A0E63 for <>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 07:13:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b9so7652314qtr.2 for <>; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 07:13:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=h3EShmcXdc7+b9S8MYthbbT0wfOFnBllhBuIJaPIpUw=; b=ScNu3bviaw99pR4gV7Ord6ZTZikPy8JF0Qt3D/AzxnYypmH3FVFT5uohYzA7A93SkR oLA7V+EAH3iJ0KZh7CyLIUzJlWm5Icyn+uf2jax739R111LJwURFT0VvXq8mQFNKHLn2 QT8sh9qNtHfFawPQhmoCFW1+lY8K9tPr288elffsZ+DIVvzA+v0Z+EpurM6OcO9TxQ72 wCgTdOyEbd0kyRJmPKTvJByyqWXXP0N0z7YDU7ZAqM+RF3dIVu03XpJxosfzuESZYh49 kJBoUdyWclIbk4P8PMfwRYrzNxsp6xC9RbJSqyn1NPwyAezbAT8+Zun63uQ1YMbFuh3Y Ygzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=h3EShmcXdc7+b9S8MYthbbT0wfOFnBllhBuIJaPIpUw=; b=osH/aCFIOxgq8ve8cRHKtXr3xVTzJ+efKcXiAksaeIvw9AFjwU6eYrW/srHaai95aI f2rjhs8ONxLc5KQt1o55gtWew0fkBa4pm/MQgPJIMsVl/ZIV6qFuk4hQJGHbfCqYf4GP K1ROemW2FbZMam+If+SlE3wfU73RSS7CRSry9+GkgKCOQ4btUwCe2oLFWKEWDmvJNAjs 2thR4HWcA/6ZCPH+YM+9t4UvWdnIp0TZZbS90TBUOul2cEA/hYw6Hvvqlxqe2PEZ3xI+ 3NhXIWuZyHz/Y6a/j0CG+GrLtRgYAsUSFwc0AXb1X1wIpkUk4zAoh85xy5gS26VYf98n d+NA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532rcxoRCmoKKAxmKYyoogMjc1rtwRBIYrecfjiresIaKCoSJ8IS L+cRBSFhb9sAnbCSwkIzIpcFhZo3hJqNyrXar8g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzCCtgcnhGEqnJw6ZUQC8mKFpw/so3qyjLYtJXVWAwjJc9oj+f0r3OdZSQfHCM5yPCUzgjZwbeuYB2nU9V3Bfk=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5c05:: with SMTP id i5mr19282500qti.34.1607267591145; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 07:13:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dotzero <>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 10:13:00 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Cc: Alessandro Vesely <>, IETF DMARC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d44d4305b5cd2594"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 15:13:14 -0000

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 8:58 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <>

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 5:09 AM Alessandro Vesely <> 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.

Murray, your recollection isn't quite accurate. The group advancing DMARC
was looking to preserve the installed base for a defined period of time due
to a) almost all the implementations were custom code and b) there was a
desire to see more experience in the wild as almost all of the deployments
were by members of the group advancing DMARC. There was also a political
element in that there were folks within IETF that felt the DMARC folks were
only looking for a rubber stamp, nothing more. This resulted in part of the

> The working group and the ISE submission started their journies almost at
> the same time, but they were procedurally independent.

There isn't a whole lot of procedure for ISE. Given the speed of the
working group, in retrospect there wasn't much risk of changes impacting
the installed base for a period much longer than what the DMARC group folks
were looking for. Just saying.

Michael Hammer