Re: [domainrep] Review of: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Mon, 20 May 2013 03:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4271521F8F2E for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2013 20:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M2HS3Uq8WkeZ for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2013 20:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B2F21F8F20 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 May 2013 20:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id dn14so6474674obc.40 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 May 2013 20:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zzolcpwWrOM8UqMtuui/brUPV8dIGt22oIHErSyyg1o=; b=Vtu0cf0dXX9xS7pBJi4djBJA+nVrgk6fR6jhYFJzzAPYG4oG7DwzBN3E3u5DBV9v+k P5wtW5IC8Ppjm5P6NF3Zs2QJCESgbNp+bAywLYjL2+DpojHemsf/FRuX0118p8DugwJt KDPJs3me6ce+nmo0BAhUicEuoDkBAiLV8hhtFWTYNXPSpqO0xyGxI7bhFo8swfOMID7B IQBQwSMyf5F31Mtj4v6C1/JogcCuV1ieJ55D3r22OXnF30M/Pyc7dl/54gS7IcAeSOK2 3nCkOkD3gShxsyFK+rRHzBizClKfPNpovowaT8YNhbrfgyXqYNAgOmuMgPxY5lGGW6kS deGA==
X-Received: by 10.60.134.71 with SMTP id pi7mr25061631oeb.107.1369021044161; Sun, 19 May 2013 20:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.9.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n6sm19273028oel.8.2013.05.19.20.37.22 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 19 May 2013 20:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51999A71.3050306@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 20:37:21 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <51999455.5060903@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYVXBE_oXWBziJ5SYXuTh-Ka+frCAA_X5+SvHknhG91ig@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYVXBE_oXWBziJ5SYXuTh-Ka+frCAA_X5+SvHknhG91ig@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [domainrep] Review of: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 03:37:25 -0000

On 5/19/2013 8:32 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com
> <mailto:dcrocker@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     Should the query (http) and response (media-type) documents also be
>     cited explicitly?
>
>
> I think the media-type one is a decent candidate.  Transport is a
> totally separate matter so I think that should be omitted.

ack.





> also on common anti-abuse heuristics (in the particular case of
> "invalid-recipients").  I don't know of any work dedicated to
> identifying sources of excessive marketing mail, for example.

oh, it feels entirely practical.  as of now.  my point is about the 
likelihood of wanting to grow the list as experience develops.

and here i thought i was clear that it was meant as an example -- a 
hypothetical.  it was meant to be credible, but not intended to be added 
now.


> To the question of a dedicated sub-registry, I'm not sure it makes a
> difference unless different sub-registries will have different update
> rules (e.g., IETF Review vs. Designated Expert).  If that's not the
> case, then updating either a master registry or a sub-registry invokes
> the same procedure, so the answer to your suggestion reduces to a matter
> of organization of the tables with IANA.

The alternative could be a flat registry, across applications, but that 
requires they not collide.  The benefit might be having sub-sets of 
profiles share some labels.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net