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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 05 October 2011 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 EF57421F8B2A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 EvLbRitaADsg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01E1F21F87C5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=lear@cisco.com; l=2032; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317797056; x=1319006656; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=akCcRjH7yERnGrZZ9b7QAgGvCblq4NN7K+lx9rHtcpg=; b=HGVltooVp/Z/3o4Lh8XLR+tpNGVODC0x0G89Ly+uZz2HKRPsFy/t4nUp efcXeEssKZMwG774nTmp9T0dPgP7GHRnZ+DHoeQ61HYGnlqws0Ki5QghH V8006q9TngDM82FN+/XNCXDRy3k/PEq2OhgPU1nmzSTSN3JDDoYQ/aGHC 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFALb7i06Q/khL/2dsb2JhbABChG2jIoEFgVMBAQEBAwEBAQ8BEEgDCgEQCw4KAgIFFgQHAgIJAwIBAgEVMAYNAQUCAQEeh2GZPAGMQZFEA4EthGOBEwSTZ5FG
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,490,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="118297744"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Oct 2011 06:44:15 +0000
Received: from elear-mac.local (dhcp-10-55-84-159.cisco.com [10.55.84.159]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p956iFMt005981; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 06:44:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4E8BFC76.8040706@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:43:02 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.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> <4E8BA37F.9010303@mail-abuse.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E8BA37F.9010303@mail-abuse.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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 06:41:10 -0000

For the record, I tend to dislike pollution of the RFC series with PR
blurbs as well.  This having been said, I would be far more interested
in a discussion about the actual substantive content of the document.

Eliot

On 10/5/11 2:23 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>