Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 12/6/20 4:42 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Sun 06/Dec/2020 04:33:13 +0100 Jim Fenton wrote:
>> On 4 Dec 2020, at 15:00, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>>
>>> The entire point of this working group (and the bis version that is 
>>> in progress) is to move DMARC into the fully-recognized "standards" 
>>> track. Note that even the current email specs are not "standards" in 
>>> IETF parlance (there's another WG addressing that). It's mostly 
>>> organizational semantic slicing-and-dicing.
>>
>> The current email specs (specifically RFC 5321 and 5322) are Draft 
>> Standard, which is part of Standards Track. There is an enormous 
>> difference between Informational and Standards Track in terms of the 
>> amount of vetting and consensus required for approval. From RFC 2026:
>>
>>     An "Informational" specification is published for the general 
>> information
>>     of the Internet community, and does not represent an Internet 
>> community
>>     consensus or recommendation.
>
>
> However, discussion and consensus which led to RFC 7489 were not much 
> different from the process that is taking place now.  This mailing 
> list started in April 2013.
>
> Previous discussion took place elsewhere.  There is still a 2011 draft 
> at:
> https://dmarc.org/draft-dmarc-base-00-01.txt
>
And SSP was started in 2004. What's your point?

Mike, i swear it's deja vu all over again