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

Martin Thomson <> Sat, 14 April 2012 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BC821F861F; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.891
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.292, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xwXgH4sxrURf; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A36821F8611; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so3605523bku.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JF5mK4RNny8zvkiJ3+m9QVTq1vXCNBcetR+5dGXXSJs=; b=gS1NKOCL+0UP0ybbwCL36DsITv8qlOEW1Eua4J9i0FftTKoXpectlZCanHE68YtgSl 2Rbro07/912mvevmJ26WVraLrfAojVFRGTv8bLZxKbKe0D9G1CIUIBpsRam4mNPsb/6e 9FPybOJoe8Nrg2MJ3taYvcuUhGahGQUDwzZIZP0MGxQLNt+wlMukkflF8GBxQKt9XQ9M fH9I8tilnV0Te6RlYyGYiNNXlPI6vK7yTgP1/NqdKWQxZBmkDmjicM5n064wsEnt1WDd Nv7LZi4QX+MMa+DjmwtmnHBxGsXg0fDrPcJWmvrQxRjrifcKDPmermXg149YidaC8AMe 5EOg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id v15mr1551718bkw.37.1334409386085; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:26 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-marf-as-13
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:16:34 -0000

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 <> 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

>> 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.