Subject: [marf] Discussion of the draft-cai-smsc-mmsc-reporting-marf draft at MARF IETF 78

From: "Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:06:39 -0500

The draft draft-cai-smsc-mmsc-reporting-marf was on the agenda and was presented at the IETF 78. The meeting minutes (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/minutes/marf.txt), however, do not reflect this.
In my opinion the main proposal of the draft - extending MARF to support the reports on abuse of the SMS and MMS messages - did not meet any strong objections and generated some interest at the meeting.

Is the WG interested in the proposed extension to MARF?

Zachary

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:08:37 -0400

Can't speak for the rest of the WG, but my personal opinion that with
sufficient work, we can converge. However - how does this draft play
with the OMA draft presented by Alex?

Yakov

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary)
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> The draft draft-cai-smsc-mmsc-reporting-marf was on the agenda and was
> presented at the IETF 78. The meeting minutes
> (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/minutes/marf.txt), however, do not
> reflect this.
> In my opinion the main proposal of the draft - extending MARF to support the
> reports on abuse of the SMS and MMS messages - did not meet any strong
> objections and generated some interest at the meeting.
>
> _______________________________________________
> marf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
>
>

---

From: "Alex Bobotek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:35:40 -0700

In my view, IETF (e.g., MARF) should be working on standards that extend
the function of MARF to support more messaging formats and protocols.
There are several ways to proceed for SMS/MMS, including:

1.  Let OMA continue with SpamRep (which has SMSC/MMSC reporting within
its scope), and 
    turn the resulting OMA spec into an RFC.  Murray and I have both
announced our 
    interest and willingness to make major contributions towards this.  
2.  Proceed along the lines of draft-cai-smsc-mmsc-reporting-marf.

In my opinion, #1 is the right path.  And there is much momentum along
this route.  IMHO, the two standards and encodings could easily converge
interoperably in practice by having servers accept either format and/or
by allowing the client to send a message containing both XML and
name/value (e.g., with the second part being a multipart/alternative).

Here's some information that has led me to the above conclusion:

At IETF78.MARF, I recall hearing that:
   * marf-base (now an RFC) is in use by probably around 25 companies
   * many people stand up and assert that XML is a better choice
technically
   * nobody suggest that unstructured name-value pairs (a la email
headers) are best

OMA SpamRep is working towards IETF convergence.  It has changed to
adopt the multipart/report MIME structure which, in its simple form, is
nearly that of marf-base, providing an XML encoded second part.  

Regards,

Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Yakov Shafranovich
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:09 PM
To: Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [marf] Discussion of the draft-cai-smsc-mmsc-reporting-marf
draft at MARF IETF 78

Yakov