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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Wed, 25 April 2012 23:11 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 DE02B21F87BD for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, 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 K2IH1l4SEf7q for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C204F21F87B9 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 2PBs1j0010ZaKgw01PBsuT; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:12:01 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=K4ag7lqI c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=vGmJt43tM7QA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=MqMvgDvoA-S53iL-l8QA:9 a=QUfD7zBks9MyX2d_hMYA:7 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=JfD0Fch1gWkA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=sDVwohhq3m5QrzKcXHYA:9 a=O0jHb72UAufWNJtRBM8A:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:11:30 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNITXMIbyZo9yVYUqgbSkbCNchdJaqoG6QgAEn8gD//9F14IABCgwA//+LI8A=
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:11:30 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102D41@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281022B8@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F98842E.5030505@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F98842E.5030505@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102D41exchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335395521; bh=Kw0g0tOF/72hbVUdoDFVyxXmzi3ASHEQoT1AdkL3Jmc=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=HnyOk13cnA2E8C/83i1YaK7cV5pV5YABHqwGgnNCTpm1SaOiQ4DU/SRxKngDyWgZp mj75r5ovHV45v/ZYl+NoXxv9ZeMxyIMAyLBJEsI1JgaK3nEgr87GmzgGlfMdv8OiHx YyFxETJoOjqEasfwSLHgyW8xDoA3sNKDMyVb6g2Y=
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@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: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:11:52 -0000

Added for -16.

-MSK

From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:10 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org; marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org; The IESG; marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi,



-----Original Message-----

From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:04 AM

To: Murray S. Kucherawy

Cc: The IESG; marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; draft-ietf-marf-

as@tools.ietf.org<mailto:as@tools.ietf.org>; marf@ietf.org<mailto:marf@ietf.org>; me

Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with

DISCUSS and COMMENT)



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

used.



We would have if we had that information, but we don't.  As I mentioned in the Introduction for -15, they are either too new (not-spam) or see too little use for us to comment on them in this document in a useful way.



I don't know what we could do beyond saying that explicitly, which we've done, apart from delaying this document until we have that experience, which could theoretically be never.



If we do want it to advance, then I'm happy to hear suggestions about what text we could add that satisfies your concern.  Is it really just the title?
Ok, you convinced me.
Let me propose something, based on your new draft version

OLD

   At the time of publication of this document, five feedback types are

   registered.  This document only discusses two of them ("abuse" and

   "auth-failure") as they are seeing sufficient use in practice that

   applicability statements can be made about them.  The others are

   either too new or too seldomly used to be included here.



NEW





   At the time of publication of this document, five feedback types are

   registered.  This document only discusses two of them ("abuse" and

   "auth-failure") as they are seeing sufficient use in practice that

   applicability statements can be made about them.  The others, i.e. "fraud"

   RFC5965], "not-spam"       [RFC6430], and "virus"[RFC5965] are

   either too new or too seldomly used to be included here.


These simple pointers would help addressing my previous point:
"Even before re-reading RFC2026, my feeling was that an applicability statement could be the first document that someone new to a WG could read: explaining the different use cases, giving pointers to the technical specifications, and explaining how to apply/combine the specifications. Basically, a document that would help implementors to select which (part of the) spec. to implement depending on the use case, a document that would promote the technology. This is how we approached the Applicability Statement documents in the WGs I've been involved with. "
Thanks for work on this draft.

Regards, Benoit.






Let me discuss this during the IETF telechat tomorrow, see what the

others are thinking, and get back to you.



OK.



-MSK