Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-02.txt

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 13:07:26 +0100

On 31.12.2011 16:25, John Levine wrote:
> This seems way, way, over-detailed for an Applicability Statement.
> 
> As I understand it, and AS is intended to answer basic questions about
> "what do you use this for"?  In the case of ARF, the answer is that
> mostly you use it in private FBLs, but we've found that you can also
> use it for normal abuse reports.  That's it.

I don't think we should feel constrained by formal purism.  The document's
usability won't be compromised if we mix a few technical specifications in
it.  For Security Considerations in particular, we should note possible
weaknesses if they are relevant to abuse reporting.  I'd rather discuss their
merit than their formal role.

> When we have more experience with using ARF in abuse reports, we might
> put some of this stuff in a BCP, but since I don't know anyone other
> than me who has much experience using them in abuse reports, that
> seems rather premature.

I agree there's a number of techniques we never tried.  IMHO, such kind of
stuff belongs to reporting-discovery, be it destined to PS, Experimental, or
(gasp) oblivion.  For example, how should network providers handle the
complaints sent to their RIR-published abuse mailboxes?

Happy 2012

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Jan 2012 19:26:10 -0000

>it.

I really don't want to add the sort of speculative stuff you've been
suggesting.  There are a lot of ways to use abuse reports, and beyond
some very general advice like don't assume that all reporters are
competent or that all reports are necessarily relevant, it is
extremely presumptuous for us to assume we know what goes on inside
other people's mail systems.

R's,
John