Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Fri, 04 December 2020 22:51 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 710F33A0EE6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:51:40 -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, 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 Qv-wAJWb8S4l for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (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 391F13A0EA7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id t3so4416991pgi.11 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:51:39 -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-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=ASZvmC3Xg3Bg7jCexDBIb/EtnKD5cq7iiTNU2SZmtDU=; b=lTZB3YHSFQwENUI7aHtIdMomqfKp+pdnGV1iEGNZlIfr9YPfpnt2TEJ3sZS0+xboXH Lpk5km1NQ8g4o9lDdBnesjGd1p1JMM0YSNcXw6bPItpLmACAYCIVSidiPj7hJHDcPHxz rlURanxoKCBZPHcDprde4rcSDGvGLpQ5lK0KG9yfYBDZh3iZVxy9IPVJznEMrTsXZCFy oidQmTdLSqvy306u5kQLw0EWUwBzY40gfuuK43KKgQLY62TmkSnPYHO5rSRdnn6oKNk6 sq9Qc8XUOs2PfFY32Ikb5lrWmDqRP0blOgXD4eon26NzHbxNQrzGQ9qfbP/w6XZFf1A2 26TA==
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-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=ASZvmC3Xg3Bg7jCexDBIb/EtnKD5cq7iiTNU2SZmtDU=; b=lLixeG8kTsg586f+QeFUm9QXzaZBsGwH48oAHtJ5GqM8eSYGXAna8kSsEcV5lcmZoN mIMtpNaMIqWXow4bIKoBd43C13eguOvVq+BzakCp0znAuf5X2+yrtRNKpqW8qxxxtZ9Y hv1ydNZeB9wr4ESOwhB4VM2Lx6PLHx3AZzNg8z5YYQX3o1vG5ND5hnYZs0WihYTEKu0n /mPDjUNFA2e1cGVMefAFqymw74PiaNkjAqGuJVOZ0kNcl9aD7VvY1esUf2oj0LtsgXho ED+l0DtoH3kVGriYByFtRYeEEgsp4v7AZs4TCGuqCGhfb3wUxyvZRhXbyZ6nZN38ymYP ZhbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532+d8IGzx8RW8DeJYBQEO9KsAuFmvInIfL3FQh70AlFpFoLa+pB ksd6KUEt593luTuC0Xa0nYB+aF27253hxQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzvQ8JY2M6m0e3eZZM/InUD8WbFoLVb45dEArzcRoTXTuP1fYd1xicwsmVm5hbYU0ECJyXCnw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5d42:: with SMTP id o2mr9342053pgm.69.1607122298310; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:51:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s7sm4094716pfh.207.2020.12.04.14.51.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:51:37 -0800 (PST)
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>, Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <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>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <40d7e78e-7026-c65c-383c-df4e3c537de3@mtcc.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:51:36 -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: <5a577765-4a0d-e1bf-5321-dfeff19d107e@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/uow-fi4m2PjQtE8B-cLDCLJln48>
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 22:51:41 -0000

On 12/4/20 2:48 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 12/4/2020 2:45 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> yes, but the new version was standards track. that's what i'm finding 
>> surprising. 
>
> Perhaps you should review the intended status for the current working 
> group documents, such as dmarcbis:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/documents/
>
What changed in the bis version to change its intended status?

Mike