> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Kitterman > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:03 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-as status and review > > Except for the change to 5.1.2, I think it's all reasonable. I suspect > that what's actually written in the revised 5.1.2 doesn't reflect what > was intended. > [...] > The way it's worded now would be appropriate if rejecting one of these > messages had some major interoperability impact and that's not the > case. > > Reading over this section (5.1.2), I'm no longer sure what it was meant > to accomplish, so I don't have a recommendation for new wording.
Think of it as a "You are compliant with this applicability statement if your abuse address accepts and processes ARF-formatted messages", trying to use normative language. They could do nothing with them, of course, but I think we need to say that this is the protocol of choice between the two endpoints in this situation. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
