Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 7:30 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap
> 
> * I am strongly opposed to AppAWG taking this on unless it is
> absolutely clear that the IETF has/will have change control and that
> the WG is free to make changes in either the document or the underlying
> specification as seems appropriate.  The history of this document
> combined with the use of the "go negotiate with the authors" copyright
> language (which does not appear to be justified by prior work _in the
> IETF_) leaves me somewhat uncertain on that point.

I believe some conversation with the authors prior to today revealed that the current boilerplate was chosen in part because of the IPR claim made about the draft and in part because it plans to say "updates RFC3501", and thus he thought the current boilerplate was the correct selection.  If in fact no text was copied from RFC3501, and the IPR claim filed about the draft is sufficiently IETF-friendly, then I believe the selected boilerplate is in fact not appropriate and something more amenable to IETF handling should be chosen and the document resubmitted.

> * I agree with Ned that we do not want to standardize or propagate a
> number of different reporting mechanisms and formats.  This work should
> not, IMO, be initiated unless minimizing those differences is an
> explicit high-priority goal.

Ned's remarks about MARF hadn't occurred to me before.  I'll discuss this suggestion with our ADs, though MARF has basically already completed its chartered work list and is just waiting for its three documents in the RFC Editor queue to publish before formally shutting down.  

-MSK