Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 25 April 2012 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CC721F8648; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.383
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 T8GC18e0lBYy; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 553A921F8526; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PN7vTN014607; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:07:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PN7sis025546; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:07:56 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4F9883CA.9050502@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:07:54 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97BEAE.9000707@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <4F97BEAE.9000707@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010802010702020900040101"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:11:45 -0700
Cc: marf@ietf.org, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:08:13 -0000

Hi Alessandro,

> On Wed 25/Apr/2012 10:18:50 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>
>> The diff: http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html
>    Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449],
>    which	is effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of
>    the IETF and thus never achieved IETF consensus. Much of the
>    content for that document was input to this one.
>
> That's a useful clarification, but possibly not as accurate as it
> could.  If I knew IETF standardization enough, I'd propose text to say
> what we mean to do, something along the lines of (AIUI):
>
>    Further advice on this topic can be found in [RFC6449], which is
>    effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the
>    IETF.  Rather than modify that document and then turn it into an
>    IETF Standard, the IETF republished it as an Informational document
>    and then publishes this document, which confers IETF Standard
>    status to selected parts of the former one, while updating it as
>    appropriate.

I prefer your proposal very much, as it addresses my questions (asked 
part of my review):

    Can you please also a few sentences on how the documents match and
    differ.
    You know, I see rfc6449, published a few months back, and I see this
    document draft-ietf-marf-as-14, which will be published approx. 6
    months
    And I'm wondering, as someone not involved in this WG...
    - Why do we have two almost similar documents?
    - Why RFC 6449 could not be a MARF document?
    - Which one(s) should I read?
    - Are they conflicting? If yes, I guess that draft-ietf-marf-as-14
    take precedence. If no, is draft-ietf-marf-as-14 is superset of RFC
    6449, and RFC 6449 should not be read any longer.
    - etc...

Regards, Benoit.
>
>