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.