Hi,
-----Original Message-----
From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:04 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: The IESG; [email protected]; draft-ietf-marf-
[email protected]; [email protected]; me
Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with
DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Therefore, I'm in favor to mention how fraud, not-spam, virus should be
used.
We would have if we had that information, but we don't. As I mentioned in the
Introduction for -15, they are either too new (not-spam) or see too little use
for us to comment on them in this document in a useful way.
I don't know what we could do beyond saying that explicitly, which we've done,
apart from delaying this document until we have that experience, which could
theoretically be never.
If we do want it to advance, then I'm happy to hear suggestions about what text
we could add that satisfies your concern. Is it really just the title?
Ok, you convinced me.
Let me propose something, based on your new draft version
OLD
At the time of publication of this document, five feedback types are
registered. This document only discusses two of them ("abuse" and
"auth-failure") as they are seeing sufficient use in practice that
applicability statements can be made about them. The others are
either too new or too seldomly used to be included here.
NEW
At the time of publication of this document, five feedback types are
registered. This document only discusses two of them ("abuse" and
"auth-failure") as they are seeing sufficient use in practice that
applicability statements can be made about them. The others, i.e. "fraud"
RFC5965], "not-spam" [RFC6430], and "virus"[RFC5965] are
either too new or too seldomly used to be included here.
These simple pointers would help addressing my previous point:
"Even before re-reading RFC2026, my feeling was that an
applicability statement could be the first document that someone new
to a WG could read: explaining the different use cases, giving
pointers to the technical specifications, and explaining how to
apply/combine the specifications. Basically, a document that would
help implementors to select which (part of the) spec. to implement
depending on the use case, a document that would promote the
technology. This is how we approached the Applicability Statement
documents in the WGs I've been involved with. "
Thanks for work on this draft.
Regards, Benoit.
Let me discuss this during the IETF telechat tomorrow, see what the
others are thinking, and get back to you.
OK.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
