Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 20 April 2012 12:39 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 49E1821F86DE for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.022
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.177, 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 DZft8v6PSN5c for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:39:39 -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 7442521F86DB for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 87597 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2012 12:39:32 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 20 Apr 2012 12:39:32 -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=4f915904.xn--3zv.k1204; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=f7bzCEyHBeRsIjXChLQrxiMorcwV98arSDrH+sngiZM=; b=Bx5CanMtQw9yf0lKmox74DHIe/GzfDAzCf0dvW/voa+9r7n0aCl/y8ZODDH9HZ6uKSzOXPhfL1KULh3EXZe6XygHgwrTySrfqUIGYVNZpIUMb3+kN+PVF/VCE7fzh3UxbEdzxk018H6kG98wCQtWFfcuHmxOMgKCcbmuKN4Yfa8=
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=4f915904.xn--3zv.k1204; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=f7bzCEyHBeRsIjXChLQrxiMorcwV98arSDrH+sngiZM=; b=JgtipFljQQUtW2NBN9Mr7GkeMrIyYjCOKFTWWR059i+qwwPAg73uOSJ2b9RS95GaX1kuSDqQeN/XKogcrRLbHN2CJpx9xkELX0FwTG2HCi3NiXbXQdymeWuCOv6/f+hwzz3RG/zJx1xLFHrsnx0zV07JsJnoK1MKv7Pd+jdPuUg=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:39:09 -0000
Message-ID: <20120420123909.19568.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <1432910.0rdicqnaN1@scott-latitude-e6320>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:39:40 -0000

>Sure it is.  Additional complexity doesn't come for free, so it shouldn't be 
>accepted without reason.

Having added Source-Port to my reporting scripts yesterday, I can say that
the additional complexity involved is quite small.

Remember that this draft is just implementing the logging advice in
RFC 6302, whose authors work at Juniper, Yahoo, Facebook, and AT&T.  I
would assume that their employers wouldn't have given them time to
work on it if they didn't think it would be of some value.

R's,
John