Subject: [marf] Meeting scheduled

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 04:39:12 +0000

For those of you planning to attend:

We have been given a 5:10pm slot for one hour on Tuesday at the Paris IETF Meeting.  This should be the last time this WG meets as by then all of our deliverables should have completed their IETF Last Calls and be on their way to the IESG.

See you there!

-MSK

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:19:41 +0100

On 26/Feb/12 05:39, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 
> We have been given a 5:10pm slot for one hour on Tuesday at the Paris
> IETF Meeting.

That's the same session as the MILE slot.  In Taipei, Kathleen asked
whether any MARF participant was present...  I don't know whether
she's going to repeat that in Paris.  The issue is about a format to
marshal ARF reports inside IODEF incidents, as John mentioned in
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/abuse-feedback-report/2009q3/000264.html

See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vesely-mile-mail-abuse for a
proposed naked format.  If LIRs are serious about mandatory
abuse-mailboxes, they may actually need something like that.  Do we
have hints about how applications can handle xmllized ARF messages?

> This should be the last time this WG meets as by then all of our
> deliverables should have completed their IETF Last Calls and be on
> their way to the IESG.

No rechartering?  Indeed, it seems we've even done some of the tasks
--but not all-- that we thought we'd have to recharter for, see
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/abuse-feedback-report/2009q4/000463.html

Le MARF est mort, vive le MARF!

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:26:05 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 1:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [marf] Meeting scheduled
> 
> whether any MARF participant was present...  I don't know whether she's
> going to repeat that in Paris.  The issue is about a format to marshal
> ARF reports inside IODEF incidents, as John mentioned in

We're not chartered to do any of this work, and we're not aware of any active cross-participation, so we didn't list MILE as a scheduling conflict.

> proposed naked format.  If LIRs are serious about mandatory abuse-
> mailboxes, they may actually need something like that.  Do we have
> hints about how applications can handle xmllized ARF messages?

I haven't heard of any work in this area.  Others?

> No rechartering?  Indeed, it seems we've even done some of the tasks --
> but not all-- that we thought we'd have to recharter for, see

I asked more than once if the group wanted to pick up the reporting-discovery draft, but no champion came forward.  I also asked JD's employer if they wanted to appoint someone to pick up where he left off, but they weren't able to commit the resources.

There was also no consensus to support the idea of reporting general security incidents through ARF.

If there are indeed people that want to do those things, the work can be resumed as individual submissions or perhaps through APPSAWG after MARF winds down.

-MSK

---

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:47:28 -0500

In
<[email-masked]>,
on 02/27/2012
   at 05:26 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]> said:

>If there are indeed people that want to do those things, the work can
>be resumed as individual submissions or perhaps through APPSAWG after
>MARF winds down.

Both discovery and security reporting seem worth doing, but absent a
champion a consensus would be irrelevant. If discovering does go
forward I'm willing to impliment it and provide the code, although not
nicely packaged.

-- 
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2        <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)