On Sep 13, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > The right place to do this 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.
An alternative could be to have a separate Applicability Statement discussing open/ad-hoc/non-pre-arranged feedback streams, so that readers aren't confused. That also leaves room for future ASes on virus reporting, et cetera -- a whole series. -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
