Hi Murray,
At 12:41 14-02-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I think it fits that definition. The "Updates" is appropriate in
that if one is implementing RFC5965, one should also read this draft.
No, the question is why is it an AS?
Sounds like a job for the non-normative SHOULD-like words draft!
:-)
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do we need to be specific
about how SMTP is used in the feedback report context? I don't
think we have any specific advice there.
No. My point was about how to draw up an Applicability Statement
from a Technical Specification. Let's say that we are using RFC 5965
for a specific purpose. Section 3.2 of that RFC mentions optional
fields. An AS can make them a requirement.
Since we're back to "WG Document" state for this one, I wonder if
taking the current WG version and doing a better job of organizing
the information without actually removing anything would make it
more palatable rather than drastically reducing the detail directly.
If I understood correctly, the draft is about using ARF for
unsolicited reports. The two documents do not really map as this
draft covers a wide topic. As you mentioned above, it is a matter of
organizing the information. How that is done is more of an editorial choice.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
