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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Wed, 25 April 2012 14:08 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 946A121F86EB for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 SdEjQE5KdSsW for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28F921F86C2 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5778020E40E9; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:08:53 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1335362933; bh=L7vOZHAlLHWsqIaNVePX6Q+eWAy+aJUNJowbULtPt2I=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=G/Z6jDZSMF7YW+oe6J8dLCViD+Pcp0IT+SUPZhoucyb9kGXPuACQY+zYvYO4+vitz yNNke4DAbn+fpZZKQtLp6RafS8QJ/79oobCV0h8+h+4u6hDBJJ5HqFrwRZ1cZX4guq ByoN0qbHrFZNHcB9gU0onUMfdmlu2KqEVFOHA+WI=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38D4820E4099; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:08:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:08:52 -0400
Message-ID: <5301521.gxfVyjcsls@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-23-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102204@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <5386985.GhKIFnpsVj@scott-latitude-e6320> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102204@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [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 14:08:54 -0000

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 01:53:35 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >  - The addition to section 4.5.1 isn't quite correct.  Elsewhere we
> >
> > tell report senders not to assume different types of reports will be
> > treated differently, so I don't think there's any need for receivers to
> > update to do so.  I think the most that can be said is that receivers
> > ought to arrange for a reasonable default result if an unknown type is
> > encountered.
> 
> There issue is that we make it a MUST to accept all types listed in a
> registry.  How would an implementation do that?  There's no protocol to
> query the registry for new types, so it can't really be done live.  The
> IESG member is saying we need to explain to people what's involved in
> satisfying that MUST.

We don't really define accept.  If I "250 OK" to accept the message and then 
discard unknown types, that's a win from that perspective.  I probably 
wouldn't do it that way, but that's not inconsistent with the requirement.  I 
don't think it's necessary to have a list of all currently possible values to 
satisfy the requirement to accept all types.

Scott K