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

Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com> Thu, 26 April 2012 00:06 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qualcomm.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 BA3A721F8838; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.253
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.254, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 jm0pRS0VlJL4; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02B721F882D; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1335398807; x=1366934807; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; bh=rhnZL1ok+nA5d0tao1WcnxFfBscAPxJkKRQDNltDpWk=; b=OCejQ5DFQC4pmWOBLNKrB8juDQ42XtqArKcmhy1ScSxJSOWqZ5//uV9l TQIiIeRC8U1I2+WkZQductRJ1wwHMfoEl1Fkejs5Yxs5U/Pu6MQ/SWGCz xKdriJ9guX/0pvQKR6S4H8eonU2WhwAqcOUN9E1tEILp1BnSADFQEfoCe M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6692"; a="184992434"
Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 25 Apr 2012 17:06:44 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,481,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="228931977"
Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 25 Apr 2012 17:06:44 -0700
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:06:44 -0700
Message-ID: <4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:06:40 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5]
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 00:06:48 -0000

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." The text you've got 
now 'buries the lead'.

Not required, but I think this might help.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102