With the imminent approval of the redaction draft, we are left with four
current documents. As we appear to be low on remaining steam, we need to
decide what to do with them. Barry and I are thinking that the working group
will meet in Paris at the end of March to tie up loose ends, and come in for a
landing shortly thereafter.
What's below is my own current opinion on our documents, having observed the
working group's current interest levels, consulting with Barry and Pete, and
knowing about other related IETF activity.
1) draft-ietf-marf-as ("Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An
Applicability Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)")
I believe this document is useful and possibly even important to get out there.
It's also the one closest to earning the labels "well-developed" and "has
consensus". We have some feedback on the current version that the working
group needs to process, and I hope we can do that in the coming few weeks. I
will also solicit a few more reviewers from outside MARF but within the realm
of abuse reporting and applicability statements. After that, I think a Working
Group Last Call would be in order, and then we can send it to the IESG.
2) draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting ("Extensions to DKIM for Failure Reporting")
Although the protocol specified here has been implemented in open source for
several years, there has been significant feedback within MARF on some possible
better ways to do it. I don't think the working group has the energy to invest
in re-hashing it from the ground up and producing something worthy of the
standards track that would then expect some widespread deployment. Instead, I
propose that this one be "parked", and eventually returned to "Individual"
status and progressed outside of the working group, or perhaps through APPSAWG
if there's interest there, perhaps seeking Experimental status.
3) draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting ("SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using
the Abuse Report Format")
The feedback on the DKIM reporting draft makes me wonder if this one needs to
be revisited with a similar bent. Regardless, there will likely be more energy
for processing this one in the proposed "spfbis" working group rather than in
MARF, so I suggest it be "parked", and if and when spfbis charters (or
re-charters) to take this on, it can pick up the work item.
4) draft-ietf-marf-reporting-discovery ("A DNS TXT Record for Advertising and
Discovering Willingness to Provide or Receive ARF Reports")
This draft doesn't have a current champion. It also describes a protocol that
is not in any known open use, nor have we heard from anyone who plans to
implement it. It's based on a proprietary protocol whose owner was seeking to
move it into open use, but currently doesn't have personnel to dedicate to its
advancement. I know there is a small amount of interest in MARF to see this
progress, but it also needs some significant interest from industry, and we've
seen no evidence of that at all. Accordingly, it is now a "parked" working
group document. It will expire later this month. I don't believe we should
continue to work on it.
Feedback welcome.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
