Hi Benoit: On Thu 26/Apr/2012 17:15:49 +0200 Benoit Claise wrote: > > I prefer your proposal very much, as it addresses my questions (asked > part of my review):
Thanks. The question it in turn raises, however, is whether a crash course on TS and AS intricacies is a worthy answer to the doubts that those documents' differing categorizations might generate. > Can you please also a few sentences on how the documents match and > differ. > You know, I see rfc6449, published a few months back, and I see > this document draft-ietf-marf-as-14, which will be published > approx. 6 months > And I'm wondering, as someone not involved in this WG... > - Why do we have two almost similar documents? > - Why RFC 6449 could not be a MARF document? In addition to what SM pointed out, let me note that it was a WG decision to proceed that way. See e.g. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg00980.html > - Which one(s) should I read? Possibly both, or the AS and the 6449 sections it refers. > - Are they conflicting? If yes, I guess that draft-ietf-marf-as-14 > take precedence. If no, is draft-ietf-marf-as-14 is superset of > RFC 6449, and RFC 6449 should not be read any longer. They're not in conflict. However, the MAAWG document is clearly focused on quite large mailbox providers. Unsolicited reports, that were relegated to an appendix, have been expanded so as to bring abuse reporting within the reach of mailbox providers of any size. Unsolicited reports can be viewed as auto subscriptions to a feedback loop stream of solicited reports. RFC 6449's detailed descriptions apply to the latter topic. Authentication failure is a somewhat unrelated use case, factored from other WG documents, that was conveniently added here later. hth _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
