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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 25 April 2012 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 426E921F8834 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 o+RhGIbrHk6E for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E35F21F8830 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1335376312; bh=LXXC4JDBhfChv9uYGTvIGC4s4dNAHiSvQUiP3QH2pH8=; l=1360; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Tm37NGWM7vb7TWUryK5hRsi08fve9BvRThx0Uxo/D0X2OVphxNBYsbx6JSmpBh41P NQdU7W6GSXC1knI9ruUIaXTs3d5cZ2+vA4/LyGF6InKUAdufVvrNC9m59/pvKnPJ65 78xafdTMDnVBJUX5kyeD1PsZMWL8GGrRoDWx2S6k=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:51:52 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F9839B8.00003F48
Message-ID: <4F9839B8.7070203@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:51:52 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: marf@ietf.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=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 17:51:56 -0000

On Wed 25/Apr/2012 19:40:50 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:

>> 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.

This is not the first time I see exchanges of clarifications on this
topic among people whom I consider IETF experts.  So, I'm worried what
will average readers of this document be able to conclude if they
happen to wonder about the status of the recommendations made or
referred to therein.  I doubt that citing [RFC2026] suffices.

That was the sense of my previous post,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg02329.html
in case it wasn't clear.