Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sun, 06 December 2020 12:47 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 5EAD93A0D35 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 04:47:03 -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 G-KKFBsAUwBs for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 04:47:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x529.google.com (mail-pg1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) (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 0E2EF3A0D32 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 04:47:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x529.google.com with SMTP id o5so6575319pgm.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 04:47:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=d5umL8cS5xXT14+ViZxRs2gHlmiirYGzTYyag6AwskQ=; b=VlE12cqNvGMTnvffg17/6/lVkOhTkiYmeseD6Fs+jQbwZ4UeA4BkcPp8BHu0Sep7E5 TjwrsnhxkkiAGpytL4UvelFrrp3GUBcLkh2al+0SfxOl/BbT+SX5GnKJ887GLAsbd5hd PWMkg6YY6IrQUalmP46GXscPH5XDJIL5tJW43n/4trFZkeSoxt2s48IouBtkmblE4eRC MjPKg8sHOvtzvfaAUxuWbab16xg4A6vLSf7o5CFE1wOdu9YSIhvbejAWnX1Lox8ORz6I AeiqaQLOUhVzwrDGgKOG/oOWUsdWjLvKaWrzq1Zs8unwx7ow51qOarDxwfX3707QE8dL 7TrA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=d5umL8cS5xXT14+ViZxRs2gHlmiirYGzTYyag6AwskQ=; b=Jzv0ZBjujoavD14yTdXfyAYM+bsmdevk2N5C3s+uhwVWyRISX3RmKA/eaeFtn3CmGC S5CR7viAAp/L4291+NJEtG7fXeoyV2lh3jqrgwp/K92FqSpKoI8jetKFizO8NeDEFxL6 KlMJhKIuUvbF9rQZoIFmqCYUxk76iJWqlL5Bb8Tkq0Z5Xd8ruF8Q6O0TE7W04ys16BG+ e/45GbZ+m/Ut0ErEq0hSrZAosrR2e+ApaJREIQb6tdrJwOdpCKuics7Nu8O+TuMX0YeC gvELuo+88BqJnCbP2gc8weEHbtcOy7aeidiTdXvO+vdD23ftUV2UGnrmF1/7sW+1zKf8 Qbjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Jrpk4o9BfcMn0b1uWrE1x2h+/96CAt4MSbBzUfoRteG/1WwtE y9uy0SMqGq66g42+ml4ImwMmyju9G1UZZA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzuQwk1Dwwuho4ewFkKbZKq6oeGUQmlT015V0d0nDlUj/EZ14z6MkbmR3a8FIPF8Vz5OJXgYQ==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8813:0:b029:19d:cd3b:6f89 with SMTP id c19-20020aa788130000b029019dcd3b6f89mr7958005pfo.42.1607258820901; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 04:47:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s5sm7931733pju.9.2020.12.06.04.46.59 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 06 Dec 2020 04:47:00 -0800 (PST)
To: 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> <40d7e78e-7026-c65c-383c-df4e3c537de3@mtcc.com> <CABuGu1qpn16+=6CUqpXbAiFrLV87s9Lx4+fqCzNtkD83HVPzEQ@mail.gmail.com> <C456270E-89A3-48BD-B123-1D789682AEBE@bluepopcorn.net> <18e93db9-bde7-bf49-670c-1e680f2ce3a6@tana.it>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <65bbc2a6-701a-1729-7892-ef68c1b6b237@mtcc.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 04:46:58 -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: <18e93db9-bde7-bf49-670c-1e680f2ce3a6@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/zkDOIO3LuNX7fkAG_MGonG5bfnM>
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: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 12:47:03 -0000

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