IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Wed, 05 October 2011 04:25 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD5E21F8BB0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 21:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.462
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 5WdUVW3JNUWR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 21:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D305021F8BAE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 21:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 21:28:16 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:28:14 -0700
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AcyCsADb7La6KY0mRdiqfns1O3y8AwAZkgqw
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C45D9E7E@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20110922134311.28658.88510.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20111003005127.09464a50@resistor.net> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C45D9E13@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAC4RtVAyyPKjxPqKQKnc5qeFh-88KOT7NL0846gRTMOb9zL0rg@mail.gmail.com> <3266F4FF-761B-4A12-8F68-7F7F8EBC3090@cybernothing.org>
In-Reply-To: <3266F4FF-761B-4A12-8F68-7F7F8EBC3090@cybernothing.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 04:25:15 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J.D. Falk [mailto:jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:09 AM
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC
> 
> >> "About MAAWG
> >>
> >>   MAAWG [1] is the largest global industry association working against
> >>   Spam, viruses, denial-of-service attacks and other online
> >>   exploitation.  Its' members include ISPs, network and mobile
> >>   operators, key technology providers and volume sender organizations.
> >>   It represents over one billion mailboxes worldwide and its membership
> >>   contributed their expertise in developing this description of current
> >>   Feedback Loop practices."
> >>
> >> Could the PR blurb be removed?
> >
> > I think it's useful in this document.  People reading IETF documents
> > aren't likely to know what MAAWG is, and a short paragraph doesn't
> > seem untoward.  I'd agree, if there were excessively long text for
> > this, but it's brief.
> 
> MAAWG will insist on keeping this.  The primary purpose, in my mind, is
> to show that even though this wasn't written within the IETF it was
> still written by people who really do know what they're talking about.

I support its inclusion based on this, and simply to provide some context about what MAAWG is.  To Frank's comment, I suggest changing "the largest" to "a large", and leaving the rest as-is.  If people really hate its placement up-front, perhaps it could appear in an appendix instead, but I'm fine with it where it is.

I don't think the IETF needs to be too worried about publishing an externally-generated document as an RFC given that it's Informational only, and is directly related to work that is going on in a current working group.  I suspect it would be more of a concern if it were re-publishing something onto the Standards Track without sending it through a working group first.

(And "Its'" should be "Its".)

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email