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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 26 April 2012 09:41 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 B443221F85F9; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.206
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6]
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 7RqwpEmzY3vn; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:41:36 -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 C3DB121F864E; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:41:35 -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 q3Q9fU3W020110; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:41:30 +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 q3Q9fRCh009562; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:41:29 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4F991847.9070501@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:41:27 +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: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com> <4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:27:24 -0700
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@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: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:41:36 -0000

On 26/04/2012 02:06, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 4/25/12 5:03 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> - I see a lot of sentences such as "... discussed in Section X of
>>>> [RFC6449]."
>>>> And the only sentence in the introduction related to that RFC is:
>>>> "Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449]."
>>>> Some sentences explaining what this informational RFC is about 
>>>> would be
>>>> very welcome.
>>> I propose this as the last paragraph to the Introduction:
>>>
>>> Further introduction to this topic may be found in<xref 
>>> target="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.
>> Thanks. Can you please also a few sentences on how the documents 
>> match and differ.
>> You know, I see rfc6449, published a few months back, and I see this 
>> document draft-ietf-marf-as-14, which will be published approx. 6 months
>> And I'm wondering, as someone not involved in this WG...
>> - Why do we have two almost similar documents?
>> - Why RFC 6449 could not be a MARF document?
>> - Which one(s) should I read?
>> - Are they conflicting? If yes, I guess that draft-ietf-marf-as-14 
>> take precedence. If no, is draft-ietf-marf-as-14 is superset of RFC 
>> 6449, and RFC 6449 should not be read any longer.
>> - etc...
>>
>> I'm sure you had very good answers to all these questions, and I'm 
>> looking for some written explanation for new comers in this space.
>
> After chatting with Benoit offline, I now believe that your addition 
> actually increased confusion rather than decreased. What I think you 
> want to say is something like, "Further introduction to this topic may 
> be found in 6449, which has more information about the general topic 
> of abuse reporting. Many of the specific ARF guidelines in this 
> document were taken from the principles presented in 6449." 
That works for me.

Regards, Benoit.
> The text you've got now 'buries the lead'.
>
> Not required, but I think this might help.
>
> pr
>