Subject: [marf] Reporting discovery

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 12:14:13 -0800

This is a call for comments on draft-ietf-marf-reporting-discovery.

Is there any interest in the working group in pursuing publication of this document?

-MSK

---

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:14:43 -0500

In
<[email-masked]>,
on 12/07/2011

>This is a call for comments on draft-ietf-marf-reporting-discovery.

There were comments about -1 in August, which certainly indicates
interest. Is there a new version?

-- 
     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)

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 21:18:09 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:15 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [marf] Reporting discovery
> 

There is not.

Since the thread that initiated conversation about that draft back in August started with skepticism about its utility, and since that same thread revealed only a single implementation, I suspect we need to consider making it Experimental unless there's some uptake in interest and some more implementations.

We also, unfortunately, need an editor.

-MSK

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 09:29:30 +0100

On 08/Dec/11 06:18, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz
>> 
> Since the thread that initiated conversation about that draft back
> in August started with skepticism about its utility, and since that
> same thread revealed only a single implementation, I suspect we
> need to consider making it Experimental unless there's some uptake
> in interest and some more implementations.

I think that Experimental accurately reflects a key aspect of the
semantics.  Feedback loops the way they're currently done suit huge
mailbox providers only.  In that sense, feedback loop doesn't scale,
and that's why reporting discovery was started.  However, there are
enhancements to Whois databases being brought about by all RIRs.
These are two competing methods for attaining the same result.

> We also, unfortunately, need an editor.

I'd be happy to do it, if no better editors volunteer for that.