Re: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On 04/Oct/11 17:28, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> On 4 October 2011 16:17, Barry Leiba wrote:
> 
>>> I suggest using "document" instead of "codify" as this is not
>>> being standardized.
> 
>> That's a sensible change.
> 
> [Insert DEnglish disclaimer:]  For "document" I read "we say so", for
> "codify" I read "we say so, and we mean it".   While this memo is no
> standard, it is still a recommendation; "codify" (desired behaviour)
> instead of "document" (observed behaviour) makes sense for me.

It seems that much of the formerly desired behavior can now be
actually observed.

>>> MAAWG [1] is the largest global industry association working
>>> against Spam, viruses, denial-of-service attacks and other online
>>> exploitation.
> [...]
> IMO saying "is a large whatever" would be better.  Presumably readers
> of this RFC know MAAWG; otherwise they might be in to grok dozens of
> ASRG acronyms and mail-abuse RFCs before they'll understand this RFC.

I agree with Frank and Murray on substituting /the largest/ to /a
large/ (maybe also s/Spam/spam/, since we're at it), and leaving the
rest as-is.  (Otherwise, any global industry association larger than
MAAWG, based on such statement, can be defamed for evading working
against spam and other exploitations...)

I guess that document would have been a BCP if it had originated
within the IETF, and that's what it's actually meant to be in any
case.  That PR blurb and the second paragraph of the abstract explain
why it is Informational instead.

Another reason not to move it is that the boilerplate paragraph
following it says that MAAWG is going to retain their copyright:

   This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may
   not be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-
   Draft.

By publishing this spec as an RFC, the IETF acknowledges those FBL
practices, thereby taking a good position fix in the becoming of the
anti-spam endeavor.  This, in turn, will ease related and derivative
developments within the IETF; assuming that the latter ones will be
considered fair use, that is.