Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-as... expired, and coming back

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

As this is late feedback, please consider all the comments are 
optional.  The comments are based on the diff posted by Murray.

The title mentions "An Applicability Statement for the Abuse 
Reporting Format".  I don't see that mentioned in the Abstract Section.

 From RFC 2606, "An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under 
what circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a 
particular Internet capability".  This draft updates RFC 5965, a 
Proposed Standard.  Why is this draft an Applicability Statement?

In Section 2, I suggest "POP3" instead of "POP".

In the first paragraph of Section 6, "identify".

    "The Mailbox Provider SHOULD process the reports to improve its
     spam filtering systems."

This is not required for interoperability.

   "3.  The Mailbox Provider SHOULD send reports to relevant parties who
        have requested to receive such reports.  To implement the
        recommendations of this memo, the reports MUST be formatted per
        [RFC5965], and transmitted as an email message ([RFC5322]),
        typically using SMTP ([RFC5321]).  The process whereby such
        parties may request the reports is discussed in Section 3.5 of
        [RFC6449]."

Picking the above as an example, Section 3.5 of RFC 6449 discusses 
about "Handling Requests to Receive Feedback".  I would reference the 
technology, e.g. RFC 5321, and document requirements about how the 
technology should be used.  The text quoted above comes out as a BCP.

     "The reports SHOULD include the following optional fields whenever
      practical: Original-Mail-From, Arrival-Date, Source-IP, Original-
      Rcpt-To.  Other optional fields MAY be included, as the
      implementer feels is appropriate."

The above qualifies as applicability as it specifies a recommendation 
for fields which are optional in a Technical Specification.

In Section 7, first paragraph, "identify".  Same for Section 8.

In Section 9:

   "command SHOULD use the NULL return address"

That should be Reverse-Path.

I am confused after reading the draft.  It comes out as a mix of 
recipes.  IETF practice is to send text.  I don't know where to start.

Regards,
-sm