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 23:09 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 BCE1621F8648; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.161, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 lemZPSHsj40i; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:09:39 -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 6E08921F8646; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:09:38 -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 q3PN9Y3q014836; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:09:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PN9YQ8026686; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:09:34 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4F98842E.5030505@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:09:34 +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: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281022B8@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281022B8@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050707050206030501000806"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:11:45 -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 23:09:39 -0000

Hi,

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:04 AM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Cc: The IESG; marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-marf-
>> as@tools.ietf.org; marf@ietf.org; me
>> Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with
>> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>
>> Therefore, I'm in favor to mention how fraud, not-spam, virus should be
>> used.
> We would have if we had that information, but we don't.  As I mentioned in the Introduction for -15, they are either too new (not-spam) or see too little use for us to comment on them in this document in a useful way.
>
> I don't know what we could do beyond saying that explicitly, which we've done, apart from delaying this document until we have that experience, which could theoretically be never.
>
> If we do want it to advance, then I'm happy to hear suggestions about what text we could add that satisfies your concern.  Is it really just the title?
Ok, you convinced me.
Let me propose something, based on your new draft version

OLD

    At the time of publication of this document, five feedback types are
    registered.  This document only discusses two of them ("abuse" and
    "auth-failure") as they are seeing sufficient use in practice that
    applicability statements can be made about them.  The others are
    either too new or too seldomly used to be included here.

NEW


    At the time of publication of this document, five feedback types are
    registered.  This document only discusses two of them ("abuse" and
    "auth-failure") as they are seeing sufficient use in practice that
    applicability statements can be made about them.  The others, i.e. "fraud"
    RFC5965], "not-spam"	[RFC6430], and "virus"[RFC5965] are
    either too new or too seldomly used to be included here.


These simple pointers would help addressing my previous point:

    "Even before re-reading RFC2026, my feeling was that an
    applicability statement could be the first document that someone new
    to a WG could read: explaining the different use cases, giving
    pointers to the technical specifications, and explaining how to
    apply/combine the specifications. Basically, a document that would
    help implementors to select which (part of the) spec. to implement
    depending on the use case, a document that would promote the
    technology. This is how we approached the Applicability Statement
    documents in the WGs I've been involved with. "

Thanks for work on this draft.

Regards, Benoit.
>
>> Let me discuss this during the IETF telechat tomorrow, see what the
>> others are thinking, and get back to you.
> OK.
>
> -MSK
>
>
>