> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:30 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> Murray, please give me OLD/NEW for these two changes and I'll put it in
> the RFC Editor notes. I'd rather not have a -17 in this particular
> case.
Ask and ye shall receive.
OLD (Section 1):
Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449], which
is effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the IETF
and thus never achieved IETF consensus. Much of the content for that
document was input to this one.
NEW:
Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449], which
has more information about the general topic of abuse reporting. Many
of the specific ARF guidelines in this document were taken from the
principles presented in [RFC6449].
OLD (Section 5.1):
2. Message authentication is generally a good idea, but it is
especially important to encourage credibility of and thus
response to unsolicited reports. Therefore, as with any other
message, Feedback Providers sending unsolicited reports SHOULD
send reports that they believe will pass Sender Policy Framework
([RFC4408]) and/or DomainKeys Identified Mail ([RFC6376]) checks.
NEW:
2. Message authentication is generally a good idea, but it is
especially important to encourage credibility of and thus
response to unsolicited reports. Therefore, as with any other
message, Feedback Providers sending unsolicited reports SHOULD
send reports that they expect will pass Sender Policy Framework
([RFC4408]) and/or DomainKeys Identified Mail ([RFC6376]) checks.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
