On Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:56:22 AM Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 09:47:30PM +0000, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > One more day. No new review comments? We're ready to go? > > This is a late review of draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-07. Apologies > for it coming late (although I did warn the chairs I'd do it today). > > I have read the draft. Overall, I believe it is in good shape. I > have a couple questions. > > First, a process issue. The header says that this is aimed for the > standards track, and that it updates RFC 4408. The chairs are more > experienced than I in the arcana of IETF process rules, but I think > this is going to be tricky, isn't it?
There's a process for dealing with downrefs. I think it's appropriate in this case. AIUI whoever does the post last call writeup on the draft has to document for the IESG why the downreft is appropriate. There's roughly no chance SPFbis will cause an impact on this specification, so it'd be wasteful to publish this as experimental and then come back once 4408bis is updated and republish the same document with a different label. > Second, in section 3, discussing rp=, the document says that a report > SHOULD NOT be generated for percentages higher than that. Under what > circumstances is it ok to generate outside of this guidance? Is this > a resource issue? I don't understand when it would be ok. It wouldn't be OK, but it wouldn't fundamentally cause an interoperability problem, so we didn't use MUST. The worst that's likely to happen is some of all of your reports get routed to /dev/null. > Those are all my comments. Thanks, Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
