"Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -----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 abue 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. OK. MUST NOT reject doesn't say that. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
