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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Wed, 25 April 2012 13:49 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 73ECD21F86C2 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:49:31 -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=[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 j+IUziTkkHFN for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0DD821F86B2 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB1F20E40E9; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:49:29 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1335361769; bh=nA4lweWEDEM3DzW479feY2noG5vkxi/TGBnCVwA/pG4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=MSjiwdJiYacLarwkW8QlE+KTOWLs03xEjiCjtcXsGjAXSA/zQGp/8lBSN08qc87We 8a6URiAbJQ+ldVPty4GQaTlMnO8t/dj40R6HdOPLbPoazRwdnJUFD58KdVMEMZORgI BKnpbCQsHPA1o8a8zvFzOtsO30GM06dZMGsID3Og=
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 7F9F720E4099; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:49:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:49:28 -0400
Message-ID: <5386985.GhKIFnpsVj@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-23-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@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 13:49:31 -0000

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 05:30:00 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 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

I don't find much value in the changes, but if that's what it takes to get 
approved, OK.  A few specific comments though:

 - 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.

 - Part of the diff starting page 7, line 4: How about anticipate or expect 
instead of believe.  Belief isn't much of an engineering term.

Scott K