Re: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 06:43 22-09-2011, The IESG wrote:

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations'
  <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-10-20. Exceptionally, comments may be

The short title of the draft is "CFBL BCP". Given the recent short discussion about the use of "BCP", I suggest changing that.

In the Abstract section:

  "This document is an attempt to codify, and thus clarify, the ways that
   both providers and consumers of these feedback mechanisms intend to use
   the feedback, describing some already-common industry practices."

I suggest using "document" instead of "codify" as this is not being standardized.

From page 2:

"About MAAWG

   MAAWG [1] is the largest global industry association working against
   Spam, viruses, denial-of-service attacks and other online
   exploitation.  Its' members include ISPs, network and mobile
   operators, key technology providers and volume sender organizations.
   It represents over one billion mailboxes worldwide and its membership
   contributed their expertise in developing this description of current
   Feedback Loop practices."

Could the PR blurb be removed?

Please note that the comments below should be read as informative as this is a re-publication of a document from a trade organization.

  "Message Delivery - The process of transferring a message from one
   mail transfer agent (MTA) to another."

According to RFC 5598:

  'A Message Transfer Agent (MTA) relays mail for one application-level
   "hop".'

The above definition sounds more like message relaying.

  'Reverse DNS ... Further, a reverse DNS query returns a PTR record
   rather than an A record."

If the "user-visible query" returns an IP address, it can be an A or AAAA record.

In Section 3.5:

  "Ownership of IP addresses can and should be crosschecked by means of
   origin ASN, whois/rwhois records, Reverse DNS of the sending hosts,
   and other sources."

The term "IP address ownership" is generally avoided to prevent assertions of ownership rights. There are organizations which sell IP address registration services.

In Section 3.5.1:

 'Sending IP addresses and/or DKIM "d=" string

  "From" email address'

These terms are used loosely. It may be viewed as appropriate for a non-IETF audience.

If there is any derivative work from this draft, I would recommend rearranging the information, i.e. some separation of the technical and non-technical details. I might suggest moving the overview before the glossary to introduce people who have been through a dysfunctional educational system to the topic. The first paragraph could then be the introduction, followed by a glossary and then an overview of the system.

The draft discusses about a subject where the answers can be complex. Hence, it does not take a one size fits all approach.

Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]