Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-marf-as-13

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

Look, this really doesn't bother me that much.  But I can't even
imagine what a sensible implementation would do for these two points.
I don't like 2119 language that I can't see how to comply with.

Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough.

On 13 April 2012 12:14, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Section 6.1, point 1 cannot be an interoperability requirement if there
>> isn't a mechanism provided.
> Existing implementations generally support this capability, but they all have different ways of doing so.  Thus, there's (currently) no standard way to do it.  Our ADs thus suggested the text that's there.

It's the unsolicited case that bothers me here.  Is there some sort of
general advice that can be given on how to implement this for an
unsolicited report? Or are these existing implementations so radically
different that is tricky?  (That would be interesting in and of
itself.)

>> Section 6.3, point 1 has the same complaint for the "SHOULD", though in
>> this case the softness of the "SHOULD" makes this more tolerable.
>
> The choice to deviate means the benefits described later in that point's text are lost.  That's the tradeoff.

Again, I'm less concerned with the why, but the how.

--Martin