IETF Logo Mail Archive

[marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Thu, 19 April 2012 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 A066321F8623 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 VEraaZMgK9Fl for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A44B21F85F6 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id zuGs1i0010as01C01uGsBv; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:16:52 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=fNu7LOme c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=HtTwlvHnwHcA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=-r6GMu4DCRkKeGeBXdEA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=IpYKLPymXUTLBirq2SsA:9 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:16:33 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
Thread-Index: Ac0eWIzAWiByKHBVQYeTaXZAPo6wLA==
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:16:33 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8Dexchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1334859412; bh=5bDCq/ecDVAwfw+DLE4Qsn3cHozaWWexahUzLAZmtNk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=BY9thDNitS2yAiU7L8qPSy8MwiFdsYaqvdOOiWoMf4vWNzUAJHUOp/RQKFciReGhP SBipNcw4B2IK7mZvqyKu5+wnxpcGKLa0daWyeUy8Kcm5pdiBNuVrEJnlzgSFHE5KYe 3cJXXpSFokuQSFMiiVZCIFGC2HWlGkQlYin6ET74=
Subject: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
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, 19 Apr 2012 18:16:35 -0000

Hello MARF,

The above draft was mentioned during the (brief) meeting in Paris.  It is a simple document that registers with IANA a RECOMMENDED field for ARF reports to include the port number from which the abusive action came.  This is encouraged practice in the IETF these days, as you can see from the document about logging that this one references.

It was decided in Paris to process it outside of MARF so that we could continue the process of winding down, since the draft is so simple.  Still, we need a few reviewers for the record.  Could we get a couple of volunteers?

Here's the datatracker link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports/

It's five pages, about two of which are typical RFC boilerplate.  Truly a quick read.

If you've read it and agree with it, you can reply here and just say so.  Of course, if you have comments, those are also welcome.

Thanks,
-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email