> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve > Atkins > Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 10:54 PM > To: Message Abuse Report Format working group > Subject: Re: [marf] Change request for AS, was Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-marf-as-05 > > Is the thought to add them to the AS document as a section on how to > craft and send an ARF message that's being used for SPF or DKIM failure > feedback? Or as something that's more generally applicable to all ARF > usage? Or something in-between - FBL best practices, say? > > (Also, if we're going to do that, should we reference 3834 - Auto- > Submitted and all that - as well / instead?) > > It does seem to make more sense to have them both referencing a base > "reporting auth failures" document that covers the common requirements > rather than referencing each other, whether that base doc is draft- > ietf-marf-as or not.
It seems to me what's in Section 6 is good advice for any ARF generation case. What's in DKIM reporting's 8.4-8.6 would go under a section that talks about any kind of automated reporting, with authentication failure reporting as the prime example. The two reporting drafts would then reference the AS instead of including those sections themselves, and the AS could reference them as use cases. That would turn them into a document cluster, but that's not a big deal; it just means they are published simultaneously with sequential RFC numbers. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
