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

Alessandro Vesely <> Wed, 25 April 2012 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D7C821F877B for <>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.628
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4E96gOK9JzeR for <>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C37821F8655 for <>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=test; t=1335344814; bh=wHOwqr79aqHZNlKxROh30xFBwZDtINeZSN1M0/96sEI=; l=982; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=c4ADh5yFGxlx2JvMxC0s18pelsr3sUyP1VuplS7MicsL8/srCQx+IuAz2JMJRhOoj gX4GZ+8Evq5P0hYGkibTPa8mkQ9TPVCQYYh9v3IfqeavP5p1yAIdjAn2Xt/4hqp0ku l+faiwVqeRYacdWw0aUws4PbW0jpb44KmpUSCMpQ=
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by with ESMTPSA; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:06:54 +0200 id 00000000005DC033.000000004F97BEAE.00004712
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:06:54 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:06:58 -0000

On Wed 25/Apr/2012 10:18:50 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> The diff:

  Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449],
  which	is effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of
  the IETF and thus never achieved IETF consensus. Much of the
  content for that document was input to this one.

That's a useful clarification, but possibly not as accurate as it
could.  If I knew IETF standardization enough, I'd propose text to say
what we mean to do, something along the lines of (AIUI):

  Further advice on this topic can be found in [RFC6449], which is
  effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the
  IETF.  Rather than modify that document and then turn it into an
  IETF Standard, the IETF republished it as an Informational document
  and then publishes this document, which confers IETF Standard
  status to selected parts of the former one, while updating it as