Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 25 April 2012 12:34 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 66E3021F86F3; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 5RkecOzpboHi; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:34:33 -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 8A33C21F86F0; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:34:33 -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 q3PCYSiV011297; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:34:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PCYR5F027120; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:34:28 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4F97EF53.9070408@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:34:27 +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: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com> <CALaySJJmpyj-j=ybsLzwJdNHcYwgTOuhA+U4CezmRpx3TgLX+A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJmpyj-j=ybsLzwJdNHcYwgTOuhA+U4CezmRpx3TgLX+A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:59:06 -0700
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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 12:34:34 -0000

Hi Barry,
>> Let me ask a very basic question to everybody, including the other IESG
>> members: what is the goal of an Applicability Statement?
>> 1. Explain how the technical specifications are used "in the wild", as you
>> mentioned. So a deployment experience document
>> 2. Or explain how the technical specifications should be used for the
>> different use cases (generally specified in a requirement document)
>>
>> When I read RFC 2026 section 3.2, I conclude for 2.
> Yes, 2.  But an AS doesn't necessarily (perhaps usually doesn't) cover
> every use case.  Consider the greylisting document that's also on this
> week's telechat: it's describing how to use SMTP for a specific use
> case, to do a specific thing.  Many AS documents will be of that
> nature, talking about certain use cases, but not every possible one.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting/ is 
different, as its scope is well defined, starting with the title: "Email 
Greylisting: An Applicability Statement for SMTP"
On the other hand, "Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An 
Applicability Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)" points to 
a generic ARF application statement... which is not.

Regards, Benoit.
>
>> Therefore, I'm in favor to mention how fraud, not-spam, virus should be
>> used.
> The working group chose to center the marf-as document on the cases
> that are actually in use today.  I think that's a fine choice.  It
> might be reasonable to have one or more AS documents about the
> less-common use cases, and that/those could be written later.  This
> isn't that document.
>
> Barry
>
>