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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 25 April 2012 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 6D81A21F8800 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.075
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.075 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, 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 gC35CtyoBevT for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B9221F87E7 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 57026 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2012 17:16:40 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 25 Apr 2012 17:16:40 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f983178.xn--yuvv84g.k1204; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=ZwkBtp4bYRiZhqOomiuWM70xKEmi0vI0le9wucYlofI=; b=Nru3zPJM5/2psDHRYLB+D9v3NN4gKOkZ7OlkCPL3z+XEq7autgWhc6PifhAR9o/N/DxMNNmtaCbVMOsGOE6lxZp9IlHk6wvLdxfPLIYHZPlAVak57fnAt8uNzbxNTwQtAtIyfqhXfUxRqRepv//LRCALyvz3WYMlwxSoeUu7tiQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f983178.xn--yuvv84g.k1204; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=ZwkBtp4bYRiZhqOomiuWM70xKEmi0vI0le9wucYlofI=; b=LkW/+rEwLDWamuZABjyIXc8+7x4NVzlvoC9sjs1e9O5U/T/ubc9OJ0jAzpS+n9/hMwVnrgm0bJDVscoxZBbK/UK5rOXhIGSF2BB9lf62l1DQ0qE0PjpdLFHzJwj2sJ4ItvmMifRauw/4uR18qLeG8/MYHekT3474u/NnOPoteI4=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:16:18 -0000
Message-ID: <20120425171618.21200.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
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 17:16:45 -0000

>The diff: http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html

Looks fine to me.  If I were picking nits I'd suggest that the sentence about
RFC6449 say:

 Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449], which is
 effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the IETF and
 so it is unknown whether it would represent IETF consensus.

But it's fine as is.

R's,
John