On 13/Sep/11 19:41, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > The right place to do [the handling of feedback reports that are > generated without a private arrangement between the producer and > the consumer] would be in additional sections added to > draft-ietf-marf-as. It's fine for that document to point to the > MAAWG BCP for the pre-arranged FBL case (as it already does), and > then also discuss things about sending or receiving feedback > outside of the context of a formalized FBL.
I agree on that. I only wrote a separate document after JD said that non-solicited feedback need to be a different Applicability Statement. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01117.html Yet, it may be convenient to rough-hew that stuff as a separate document, at least until we hear from JD. I dunno whether WG-doc vs. individual submission makes any difference in such respect. Please advise. On 13/Sep/11 19:03, Murray S. Kucherawy also wrote: > I don't think we could codify, in protocol at least, anything at > all about WHOIS. In its current form it isn't a reliable source of > any kind of information. It seems to be getting more and more reliable, even including advice about reliability, in some cases. I'd consider it more reliable than rDNS + domain-name lookup, but would like to hear from John on this point. > All of that might change if the WEIRDS effort is successful, but > for now WHOIS is a wild west. IMHO, the larger part of the difficulty is the need to interface five different RIRs. It would be great if WEIRD could come out with an homogeneous rDNS-like interface --obviously OT here. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
