Re: [marf] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-01
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 20 April 2012 17:08 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.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 37D0721F86E8; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 zF-9ZErsOIve; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C78321F86E5; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhkk25 with SMTP id k25so6096377yhk.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wPGZhrRaP2kv60GW6yTgZU707596FHQZlLIF6qnOZrY=; b=SPHaK65g6BnP0jPRDjLebpVX7gdM4aLJwIL0euZtaE2sMOd6YI/zRpLZXsHAkpTLbC VK3aIbCUTposh3J4Ga2H8BP2nR9YhyxT+wCfGuCjOoPqpWKJvimBjCCyRpYAFgoIYdtz Avs5vZXZBi5SRL5VBC0LvVPAvGaj2gjcOFeO97pjqHsZE0y6LgO83OFTNgXdB9CuOdFb w4JZD+9IcSCb9wGXc2SHBJBigwG8mQ0nWrPHiwix6xJtB2nOKACJwXpHYau0ry1MoP4d vzhWSBjdIE1j/8U2t7tjR3axiBcLDtFk35kjJ6A93S+rBFPe27ut81ldYNsheCiAwysL ng5w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.76.133 with SMTP id b5mr6837046yhe.3.1334941699111; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.147.152.14 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB707@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120419130040.0b4ee328@elandnews.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB707@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:08:19 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: JcibHHpiXYbiwHri_ACkM64OuxQ
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVDGrk9pB1+fuj86gcU4xP_TBh29gSmGGoKw+AeJZ1xBAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports.all@tools.ietf.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-01
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 17:08:20 -0000
>> 'A new ARF reporting field called "Source-Port" is defined.' >> >> That should be header field (see Section 3.2 of RFC 5965). I gather >> that the intent is to make this an optional header field. I suggest >> specifying that Section 3.2 is being updated. That should also be done >> for Section 3.1 of RFC 6591. > > I haven't seen specific section call-outs done in an updating document before, only > the "Updates" stuff on the title page. Is this necessary? I've seen it occasionally. I think that if the sense in which B updates A is narrow enough that it's easy to specify what's updated, it's quite useful to say what's updated. I doubt you'll get any DISCUSSes if you don't, but anything that will help the reader make better use of both specs is a good thing. Barry
- Re: [marf] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft… Murray S. Kucherawy
- [marf] APPSDIR review of draft-kucherawy-marf-sou… S Moonesamy
- Re: [marf] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft… S Moonesamy
- Re: [marf] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft… Barry Leiba
- Re: [marf] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft… Murray S. Kucherawy