IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 19 January 2011 04:18 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46AC128C133 for <marf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:18:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.763
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.763 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Khb-S3MUZGnI for <marf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675AD28C12E for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so402295iwn.31 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:20:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iOV2pmvUN9UjwXFPJOomVfY740MuUd6qCuDGSgJfa3Q=; b=OoR2FDyDzo1Uo3cm4C5CK4LbOQKafNkRHE2M6CFe2MIUOlDpdo4D7yb0aDYUSA6PLO 079gWXUitAaIgUAFLcFqFcgNtWVYLuHCqpiiwjRj9xo+1JgNBaeon95dbvfsY8SxzIyX IUnUjEcQcM1dvsqLGetAawsf08Vh45Lb5njUM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=LN6YQji+coiVn/Ar0LvZP+90KOld1WslQC6E3KmZMY/8Af5IkXEhigMp4BlB7GujQw M4yi/tOuQkZ6UhEOQHIdqgThEm/tzjfV5NVv5oF6IqNY5lycU6WlJZujYMy7TydUQA+7 bpgNLM4TVxb2FRRrkvI+EU3LVVOvvjYgcLS7w=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.218.200 with SMTP id hr8mr207517icb.219.1295410840133; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.42.227.193 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:20:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1341E73EAF@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <93B515D5-8249-4443-8F30-5FFB15AE9A38@cybernothing.org> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1341E73EAF@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:20:40 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: gsI44oSNmykYYSquzZVZTP54uTw
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=tTtaevSKCUmF2f4_TwmWvQC-rOdmZpKWfRKhs@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Message Abuse Report Format working group <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 04:18:02 -0000

>> This is intended to fulfill the informational/BCP goal from the MARF
>> charter:
>>
>> >   2) The group will produce an informational document detailing
>> >   guidelines for deploying and using ARF, including descriptions
>> >   of current practices and their rationales.
>>
>> The MAAWG Board has decided that they'd prefer to retain change
>> control.  That doesn't mean MARF is locked out, though -- if there are
>> enough suggestions to warrant publishing a 2.0 version, I think MAAWG
>> would be open to it.
>
> This too should probably become a working group document, though I say that having
> not yet read it.  :-)  I will do so this week as I seem to be neck-deep in document
> work anyway.

No... if MAAWG wants to retain change control, that means I should
help JD send it through the Independent Submission stream.  It can't
be a working-group document if the working group doesn't have change
control.

That said, as JD points out, it's fine for the working group to
discuss it and make comments, which MAAWG might choose to accept.

As to the charter item (which was due in September), the working group
can formally choose to
1. abandon it after the MAAWG document is published, because we decide
that the MAAWG document says what we want to say, or
2. write an informational document that cites the MAAWG document and
says whatever we want to say that's different.

Or, of course, we can completely ignore the MAAWG document and produce
our own.  I don't recommend that, but it is the working group's
decision.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email