Subject: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis and Standard Track

From: Dotzero <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 16:13:26 -0400

My understanding when the DMARCbis effort was spun up was that we were
trying to move it to Standard Track. Is this still the goal? A number of
experimental things are currently being included. This would seem to
preclude DMARC being on Standard Track.

If the experimental items being discussed were removed from the current
draft(s) and moved to separate documents, there would still be an issue if
there was a DMRC dependency rather than the experiment(s) being layered on
top of DMARC.

I'm not giving any proposed answers. I'm simply asking the question. Chairs?

Michael Hammer

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:50:49 -0700

> I'm not giving any proposed answers. I'm simply asking the question.

Not a chair, but I have played one on TV.

The status we're going for is "Proposed Standard".  Note the word
"Proposed"; a document seeking this status doesn't need to be bulletproof
out the door, as some evolution based on experience is required.  The
standard for publication is higher than Experimental or Informational, to
be sure, but it's not so high that leaving room for development isn't
permitted.  If the things you're calling "experimental" here are based on
consensus after the working group is clearly making informed decisions, I
think we're good to go.  We're not trying to leap directly to "Internet
Standard".

I would argue that Section 4.1 of RFC 2026 concurs with that position.

-MSK, ART Area Director

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:52:37 -0700

Sigh...

> think we're good to go.  We're not trying to leap directly to "Internet

Make that:

"... as some evolution based on experience is anticipated."

-MSK, same hat

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Mar 2022 18:32:36 -0400

It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy  <[email-masked]> said:
>"Proposed"; a document seeking this status doesn't need to be bulletproof ...

I would expect a great deal of institutional pushback at a change directly
from informational to full standard even if we didn't change a thing.

So Proposed Standard it is.

R's,
John

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 18:09:36 +0100

Yes, I think Mike is confusing "Standards Track" with "Internet
Standard".  There's no requirement that a Proposed Standard that's
based on an Experimental or Informational starting point have any
particular relation to the starting point, and we're free to do
anything the working group thinks is appropriate.

Should we, at some point, want to move from Proposed Standard to
Internet Standard, that would be a different kettle of worms of a
different colour.

Barry

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:51 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>> My understanding when the DMARCbis effort was spun up was that we were trying to move it to Standard Track. Is this still the goal? A number of experimental things are currently being included. This would seem to preclude DMARC being on Standard Track.
>>
>> If the experimental items being discussed were removed from the current draft(s) and moved to separate documents, there would still be an issue if there was a DMRC dependency rather than the experiment(s) being layered on top of DMARC.
>>
> The status we're going for is "Proposed Standard".  Note the word "Proposed"; a document seeking this status doesn't need to be bulletproof out the door, as some evolution based on experience is required.  The standard for publication is higher than Experimental or Informational, to be sure, but it's not so high that leaving room for development isn't permitted.  If the things you're calling "experimental" here are based on consensus after the working group is clearly making informed decisions, I think we're good to go.  We're not trying to leap directly to "Internet Standard".
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc