Hiya, As these are all comments you can continue to leave 'em however you like:-)
On 04/25/2012 01:06 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 4:34 AM >> To: The IESG >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with >> COMMENT) >> >> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-marf-as-14: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss- >> criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Just a bunch of nitty comments. Feel free to take 'em or leave 'em. > > Leaving 'em, except: > >> 5.1 (2) - I think you mean that "they think will" pass SPF/DKIM checks, >> since they can't be sure > > OK. > >> 5.2 (1) - "the receiver" is a bit ambiguous in the 1st sentence, maybe >> s/the receiver/the report receiver/? (Or if handling is expensive for >> both, then maybe say that.) > > OK (the former). > >> 5.5 (1) - is "bulk senders" at the end here ambiguous? I read it as >> referring to the sender of the message(s) that triggered the report. > > Right, but I'm fumbling on wording to clarify. Is "bulk email senders" > enough (as different to "bulk report senders")? Well, sometimes just using more words works, e.g. maybe "the sender(s) of the messages that triggered the reports" (but I didn't look back for context so that might be useless;-) > >> 6 - what is a "smaller" AS or use-case? Do you mean fewer people will >> do this or that its simpler? > > As in this section (the statement) has less to say than the sections above > that talk about the "abuse" feedback report type. > >> 6 - point (3), is the "MUST be constructed" there right? If everything >> needed to satisfy this MUST is later in point 3, then you could say >> "MUST be done as stated below" - as is, this looks like there's >> something else needed to satisfy the MUST but you don't say what. > > The first MUST sets the overall goal. Since it is not itself normative, it > could change to "needs to", since the normative stuff later is what really > lays it out. > >> 8.3 - this is a little terse, maybe point back at those recommendations >> or say a bit more? > > Sure (the reference). > >> 8.4 - might be better to say "larger volumes or higher frequency" > > OK. > >> 8.5 - I guess this means that report receivers ought not react to >> missing reports as if something was wrong. Not sure if that's worth >> noting explicitly or not. > > How would you react to a missing report? Complain to the waiter? :-) Or throw away the next rx'd because its not last-seq+1 or whatever). Sell the information as to who'd doing what based on the nodes that think they're running this protocol? S > > -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
