Added for -16. -MSK
From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:10 PM To: Murray S. Kucherawy Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG; [email protected] Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Hi, -----Original Message----- From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:04 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy Cc: The IESG; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; draft-ietf-marf- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; me Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Therefore, I'm in favor to mention how fraud, not-spam, virus should be used. We would have if we had that information, but we don't. As I mentioned in the Introduction for -15, they are either too new (not-spam) or see too little use for us to comment on them in this document in a useful way. I don't know what we could do beyond saying that explicitly, which we've done, apart from delaying this document until we have that experience, which could theoretically be never. If we do want it to advance, then I'm happy to hear suggestions about what text we could add that satisfies your concern. Is it really just the title? Ok, you convinced me. Let me propose something, based on your new draft version OLD At the time of publication of this document, five feedback types are registered. This document only discusses two of them ("abuse" and "auth-failure") as they are seeing sufficient use in practice that applicability statements can be made about them. The others are either too new or too seldomly used to be included here. NEW At the time of publication of this document, five feedback types are registered. This document only discusses two of them ("abuse" and "auth-failure") as they are seeing sufficient use in practice that applicability statements can be made about them. The others, i.e. "fraud" RFC5965], "not-spam" [RFC6430], and "virus"[RFC5965] are either too new or too seldomly used to be included here. These simple pointers would help addressing my previous point: "Even before re-reading RFC2026, my feeling was that an applicability statement could be the first document that someone new to a WG could read: explaining the different use cases, giving pointers to the technical specifications, and explaining how to apply/combine the specifications. Basically, a document that would help implementors to select which (part of the) spec. to implement depending on the use case, a document that would promote the technology. This is how we approached the Applicability Statement documents in the WGs I've been involved with. " Thanks for work on this draft. Regards, Benoit. Let me discuss this during the IETF telechat tomorrow, see what the others are thinking, and get back to you. OK. -MSK
_______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
