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

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 25 April 2012 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C9EC21F867B; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SFJVxM7Edldh; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E719321F8686; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so2747547obb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SYRfBmevdL4sfo/wqojnyNRHro9a53cdFPtzlQZkW/c=; b=l3xJxZMzKfSX/gKpWKRGWFh5GFFZ20QhjDfUbcuc+t4J/krIk8udBXiO+ln6jQhBnT zypnOMp4XZt1vD+cg45O0Vh6EWbV5PHXiLbZ/hjn/MG9lwgS0AkjTtN5A/gyt2eXd/iN Gce0zoo5zqlrcz7vAEEKVbEtPcLaR0/Igi7C820YBqE9OHdiAkmjFGIAlIWlep+tGEP2 XXYjYuRW+esf1T49NR6KH8jrdpUOUGf6bXLSEbFLqWvZ9r2XYZgg5hwFC+VnABjGJC3L A3b7yVkGRp5FxTgYHEnFHiFPMr4IzhWLQFBaAr0IaHJWFW5G0aM+j5kTu0gFgrCF4qg4 vmJw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id r6mr2966005oeb.2.1335354417503; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:46:57 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: FoUkOJKoVImzv3GqaH2EIl2dYkQ
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Benoit Claise <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:46:58 -0000

> 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.

> Therefore, I'm in favor to mention how fraud, not-spam, virus should be
> used.

The working group chose to center the marf-as document on the cases
that are actually in use today.  I think that's a fine choice.  It
might be reasonable to have one or more AS documents about the
less-common use cases, and that/those could be written later.  This
isn't that document.