> -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:59 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt > > > 1. Mail operators MUST proactively request a stream of ARF reports > > from Mailbox Providers. Recommendations for preparing to make > > that request are discussed in Section 4.1 of [RFC6449]. > > > > Um, OK, that makes it clear why it ought not be a MUST. :-) Seriously > though, you *don't* want to say that *all* mail operators MUST a > request (which is how the sentence currently reads). You probably want > to say that all requests MUST be proactive. The first sentence needs > re-arranging.
How about: ARF report streams MUST be established proactively between Report Generators and Mailbox Providers. Recommendations for preparing to make that request are discussed in Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC6449"/>. > > 2. Operators must be able to accept ARF [RFC5965] reports as email > > messages [RFC5322] over SMTP [RFC5321]. These and other types of > > email messages that can be received are discussed in Section 4.2 > > of [RFC6449]. > > Is there a reason that first "must" is not capitalized? Nope, fixed. > > 6.2.1 > > Handling of unsolicited reports has a significant cost to the > > receiver. Senders of unsolicited reports, especially those > > sending large volumes of them automatically, need to be aware of > > this and do all they reasonably can to avoid sending reports that > > cannot be used as a basis for action by the recipient, whether > > this is due to the report being sent about an incident that is > > not abuse-related, the report being sent to an email address that > > won't result in action, or the content or format of the report > > being hard for the recipient to read or use. > > > > I don't get why 2119 language is being avoided in the above. Why not > > s/need to be aware of this and do all they reasonably can to avoid > > sending/[MUST/SHOULD] NOT send ? > > This was not addressed. I think this paragraph sets the stage for the normative stuff throughout the rest of the section. It doesn't itself carry any normative advice. It might thus best be relocated, still without 2119 language, to the top of Section 6. Do you agree? -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
