Re: [marf] Working group status, and progress on the active documents

["J.D. Falk" <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 24, 2011, at 6:33 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:

> ** draft-ietf-marf-reporting-discovery-01
> JD posted this version on 27 July, and there have been no comments.
> JD, what do you consider the status of this version to be?  Do you
> think it needs more work, or is it ready to go?  Everyone else, please
> review this version and post comments, or let us know that you've
> reviewed it and you think it's ready.

I could use some help with the ABNF, at which point I think the initial protocol definition work will be complete -- but there still aren't any known implementations, so I wouldn't feel comfortable calling the entire effort finished at that point.

My employer has some implementation plans, but we don't have a timeline I can share at present -- and as the largest ARF generator implementation, any changes to the existing system are kind of a big deal.  I'd love to see some smaller, more experimentally-minded operators give it a try in the meantime.

> ** draft-ietf-marf-redaction-00
> JD posted the first working-group version on 6 April.  The only
> comment so far is from Murray, who thinks it's ready.  We need more
> reviews.  JD, do you think this version is ready, or do you intend to
> post a revision?  Others, please review and comment, or let us know
> that you think it's done.

I think it's ready.

> Finally, we have this one pending:
> 
> ** draft-jdfalk-marf-as-00
> JD posted this on 13 May, and there's been little substantive said
> about it.  It's how we plan to address the charter item that coincides
> with MAAWG's feedback loop document (draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp).  Is
> this the path the WG wants to take?  Shall we adopt this as a WG
> document, and proceed with it?  Reviews and comments, please.

I reposted it as draft-ietf-marf-as-00 (with a few minor changes) earlier today.  Looks like there's still some interest in discussing whether to add additional use cases; my opinion is known, but it's a WG document now so I'll bow to consensus.

--
J.D. Falk
the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions