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

Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org> Wed, 05 October 2011 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
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 85CF621F8DE5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.428
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.829, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 uNZifU0KqEbw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SJDC-SDIRelay1.sdi.trendmicro.com (sjdc-sdirelay1.sdi.trendmicro.com [150.70.64.59]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8429021F8DE4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harry.mail-abuse.org (harry.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.27]) by SJDC-SDIRelay1.sdi.trendmicro.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F313B006A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 00:23:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from US-DOUGO-MAC.local (gateway1.sjc.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.81]) by harry.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293FEA9443B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 00:23:28 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4E8BA37F.9010303@mail-abuse.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:23:27 -0700
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 00:20:22 -0000

On 10/4/11 9:09 AM, J.D. Falk wrote:
>>> "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 agree with Frank on this issue.  The PR blurb should not be included.  
If MAAWG finds removal unacceptable, they are free to publish the 
document themselves among their other documents.  MAAWG has a closed 
membership heavily influenced by ISPs and high volume senders.  The IETF 
has normally resisted this type of influence by not referring to 
specific organizations.  Such influence is not always beneficial from 
the perspective of many IETF objectives.

-Doug