IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Proposed WG charter for "arf" (Abuse Report Format)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Thu, 09 July 2009 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F2573A683A for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.591
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FNAFn6WCjJr0 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D9A3A6B16 for <discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.71]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:04:43 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:04:43 -0700
Subject: RE: Proposed WG charter for "arf" (Abuse Report Format)
Thread-Topic: Proposed WG charter for "arf" (Abuse Report Format)
Thread-Index: AcoAnfBNXEGRsEYJQi2vvsNV0JbNSQAEIyCw
Message-ID: <BB012BD379D7B046ABE1472D8093C61C0112AA8DE1@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <BB012BD379D7B046ABE1472D8093C61C0112AA8C82@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4A55F884.6070703@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A55F884.6070703@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:31:51 -0700
Cc: "discuss@ietf.org" <discuss@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:04:22 -0000

Hi Eliot,

The MAAWG conference in Amsterdam showed that there are a few deployed enhancements not already covered by the current draft, and a few others people are interested in discussing.  I'm also interested in exposing ARF to a wider body of operational scrutiny than what MAAWG tends to have before moving it toward formal publication.  Covering all of this in the context of a working group seems like a good use of resources to me.

The DKIM reporting stuff could really use a home too and it's become tied to ARF in some ways, so this is also a good fit.

So no, not much in the way of controversy, but there's still work to be done and this seems to be a good way to keep the momentum up.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email