Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

[Dotzero <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 8:58 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 5:09 AM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> 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
pushback.

>
> 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