> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Shmuel Metz > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 8:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-as-05 > > In <[email protected]>, on > 02/02/2012 > at 12:35 PM, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> said: > > >I'm not against using ARF for unsolicited reports, I'm against sending > >unsolicited reports that aren't actionable by the recipient. > > I'd suggest changing MAY to SHOULD in item 11 of 8. Generating and > Handling Unsolicited Reports. > > 11. This is, however, not universally true. Anyone sending > unsolicited reports in ARF format can legitimately presume > that some recipients will not be able to see the ARF > metadata (e.g., those elements present in the second part of > the report), and instead SHOULD include all information > needed in the human readable (first, text/plain) section of > the report. Further, they MAY ensure that the report is > readable when viewed as plain text, to give low-end > ticketing systems as much assistance as possible. Finally, > they need to be aware that the report could be discarded or > ignored due to failure to take these steps in the > most extreme cases. > > I fixed a couple of nits in the above; adding "some" and changing an > inappropriate "i.e." to "e.g.". I'm not sure whether the second MAY > should also be SHOULD.
Agree with the "some". I think if you're going to change the first MAY to SHOULD, changing the second also makes sense. I agree with it, since interoperability is the goal, so I've made the change, but of course consensus could disagree. "i.e." is correct rather than "e.g."; "i.e." means "that is", which is more appropriate here than "e.g." which means "for example". What's in parentheses there is precise, not an example. Thanks, -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
