On 14/Dec/11 19:55, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely >> >> [Section 2 and Section 3 stuff] > > Thanks for your suggestions. However, I think the layout of the > sections whose revisions you proposed are sufficient as-is. After > two working group last calls and too many revisions, I think we're > long past the point where we should be worried about arrangement of > the material unless it's actually seriously wrong.
The proposed layout change is minimal, in spite of my lengthy description of it. As it retains the role of A-R fields, the result is more semantically similar to -06 than accomplishing John's move otherwise --unless you have a better solution, of course. However, Section 3.1's title and its reference to Section 3.3 /are/ seriously wrong. >> Reported-URI is never mentioned in the document, except in the example. >> Please remove it from there too. > > I disagree that this is necessary. We're not saying other ARF > fields aren't allowed here, are we? By omitting to exemplify them we don't imply they are not allowed. ARF mentions "a suspect URI that was found in the message that caused the report to be generated", not a synthesized URI, e.g. obtained by prepending "http://www."; to a random domain-like string :-/ > If they're allowed in ARF, they're allowed here (unless we've > explicitly said otherwise, and we haven't). Agreed. But if we are unable to imagine any plausible value for that field, we'd better not to mention it at all, IMHO. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
