> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:45 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [marf] Change request for AS, was Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-marf-as-05 > > On 01/Feb/12 12:15, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > 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....... > > > > It looks good to me[...] > > At the risk of being proposed for a treatment, I retract my post and > ask that a new section be added to marf-as, about loop avoidance and > control of flow. > > The new section would cover FBL traffic details such as using VERP and > replying 552, which are to be used by all of dkim-reporting, spf- > reporting, and reporting-discovery. Read more on, e.g. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01910.html
I would not be opposed to taking what dkim-reporting says in Section 6 and Sections 8.4 through 8.6 (with parallel text in spf-reporting) and moving them to the AS, and making the AS an informative reference for the two reporting drafts. That seems to be a sensible common-factoring to do. Is there any support/objection for doing so? However, if we also agree that we want to include the "developed relationship" example Alessandro has there, I would like to see some text that presents it but is far more concise. A detailed, complex (or even contrived) example is more confusing than a couple of simply-presented concepts. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
