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

[Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]>]

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.

>> MAAWG [1] is the largest global industry association working
>> against Spam, viruses, denial-of-service attacks and other online
>> exploitation.
[...]
>> 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.

In Wikipedia the "largest" would immediately get a "citation needed"
flag; it sounds like spam.  With a reliable third party reference it
might be possible to say "as of 2011 was the largest"; but do we care
who was "the largest whatever" at the time of the RFC publication?

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.

-Frank