On 31/Jan/12 22:23, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I am re-posting this without the extra recipients; please reply to
> THIS message, and NOT to that other one. We can discuss later who,
> exactly, should get the truncheon treatment here.......
> ---
>
> Here begins a last call for the MARF working group on the subject
> document, detailed below. Please make any comments you have on this
> version no later than 10 Feb 2012. That's a week and a half, which
> should be enough for this active and vocal group, wot? Please do not
> wait until the last minute, and especially do not wait until the
> document goes to the IESG. You will be beaten with a rubber
> truncheon.
It looks good to me. The only nit I'd note is in
9. Per Section 4.4 of [RFC6449], a network service provider MAY use
ARF data for automated forwarding of feedabck messages to the
originating customer.
This is a very important statement, IMHO, as it involves a number of
those "abuse addresses in WHOIS records of the IP" that are mentioned
elsewhere in the document. I think "network service provider" is
clear enough (rfc6045-bis is changing "network provider" to "service
provider", FWIW.)
The nit is s/feedabck/feedback/, obviously.
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
