On Sun 06/Dec/2020 13:46:58 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
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?
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.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
