On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 05:30:00 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Hello all, > > I've got a diff between the current version and what I propose as our > response to the two DISCUSS positions from the IESG about this draft. > Please review and comment ASAP. > > The diff: http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html > > -MSK
I don't find much value in the changes, but if that's what it takes to get approved, OK. A few specific comments though: - The addition to section 4.5.1 isn't quite correct. Elsewhere we tell report senders not to assume different types of reports will be treated differently, so I don't think there's any need for receivers to update to do so. I think the most that can be said is that receivers ought to arrange for a reasonable default result if an unknown type is encountered. - Part of the diff starting page 7, line 4: How about anticipate or expect instead of believe. Belief isn't much of an engineering term. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
