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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Wed, 25 April 2012 05:30 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 68DC121F8667 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.634
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.634 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 wF0EQs8toCUo for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496E721F8666 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 25W11j0010as01C015W1aR; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:01 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=MJriabll c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=YqYjYCUSHBwA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=LqCzzTgQAAAA:8 a=Glfapu3kS7aoubB-eKoA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=AT3tKAeYR9kA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=xm4BELdeGjED4zU5EtYA:7 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; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:01 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
Thread-Index: Ac0ipHVkVfh2i6HcSRStlMqNZFB0BA==
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:30:00 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5Bexchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335331801; bh=yTFIL6tiKM/dYkwhnrIOWEbIDONzy6Q/I5jE/fKPaBo=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=fCm84DbOhF/Sgyuftd6LOYdQQj+d1QEEKxc8M9oIWL6R+mXlj9/E2P+Dt15iF3evx L0PmgpZyj5emfD5fSSl2XgM3VELyxxOuMV1zLZGtFX7Xm2ODJLKrVMiRTQxSOk/17E lL8uaBX6cSJuWqYabMrxBjS5nsO6NTJfL9fU8UDo=
Subject: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
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 05:30:03 -0000

Hello all,

I've got a diff between the current version and what I propose as our response to the two DISCUSS positions from the IESG about this draft.  Please review and comment ASAP.

The diff: http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html

-MSK