Re: DMARC methods in mailman (off-topic)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hector,
At 18:55 22-12-2016, Hector Santos wrote:
>Well, for a while now, there has a number of efforts to fast track 
>items using Informational Status submissions which has, no doubt, 
>been leveraged as a means to bypass critical IETF reviews.  DMARC is 
>most definitely one of them.  Lets not fool ourselves.

Did you mean "Independent Stream" instead of "Informational 
Status"?  If so,  RFC 4846 discusses about the latter.

>We might call it a "pseudo-standard" because of wide usage but in 
>reality it is still an informational status document.  That should 
>change so it can get the proper status and wider and more complete 
>engineering reviews, and frankly more serious considerations. Since 
>ADSP was abandoned, a large investment was lost. I have a problem of 
>fully committing to a Informational Status DMARC protocol that has 
>the same problems ADSP had.  Why should I further invest in it?

I doubt that I could provide an adequate answer to the question as 
our considerations are different.  From my end it is a matter of 
which technical specifications I have to comply with for email to be 
usable.  There is also a policy [1] about IPR which determines 
whether a technical specification is acceptable or not as a standard.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. This is not directly related to the IETF.