Hi,
Is that the new modus operandi within the IETF, that extremely weak,
poorly engineered Informational Docs can be fast tracked as a
"standard" in the IETF?
I hope not. Especially when a proposed standard ADSP rfc5617 was
officially abandoned for the 100% same issues and problems its
replacement "Super ADSP" a.k.a. DMARC has. So if we abandoned ADSP
for reason X and DMARC suffers the same exact X problem, shouldn't it
be abandoned as well?
--
HLS
On 12/22/2016 11:09 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Ted,
At 07:12 21-12-2016, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Given that the DMARC "specifcation" isn't even being treated as a
standard that must be obeyed in all of its particulars by its
proponents --- the fact that this is being used by its propoonents to
twist mailers of the IETF --- a standards body --- into knots because
it is enforcement is random and *not* standardized is, quite frankly,
amazing to me.
According to a blog article written by Mr Woodcraft, Senior Technical
Adviser, Government Digital Service, DMARC is "almost an internet
standard listed as 'Informational' at the The Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), although it's already widely used particularly by
the larger, consumer-facing email providers". There was an
announcement from the Paypal Product and Ecosystem Security Team in
which there is the following: "the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) published RFC 7489 for Domain-based Message Authentication
Reporting and Conformance (DMARC)". According to the RFC Editor the
specification was published in the Independent Stream [1], i.e. the
specification was not been published by the IETF.
The current discussion, as the previous ones, is about whether there
is a problem affecting IETF mailing list subscribers, and if so, what
to do about it. Is that similar to the one discussed in the thread at
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/24/794 ?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/