> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 6:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy > Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as > > 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.
There issue is that we make it a MUST to accept all types listed in a registry. How would an implementation do that? There's no protocol to query the registry for new types, so it can't really be done live. The IESG member is saying we need to explain to people what's involved in satisfying that MUST. > - 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. Good point. We can patch that up with an RFC Editor note, unless another new version is warranted. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
