Subject: [marf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback-01.txt> (Email Feedback Report Type Value : not-spam) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 06:51:03 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format
WG (marf) to consider the following document:
- 'Email Feedback Report Type Value : not-spam'
  <draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard

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
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2011-09-22. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This document defines a new Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) feedback
   report type value: "not-spam".  It can be used to report a message
   that was mistakenly marked as spam.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:42:12 -0700

>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2011-09-22. Exceptionally, comments may be

I read the document.  As an editorial nit, Section 1.2 (terminology) 
seems superfluous given that there is only one optional 
requirement.  In the example in Section 3, I suggest referencing RFC 
5965 or pointing to the authoritative source.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 17:20:49 +0200

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback/

Hi, 2.5 nits not important enough for the general list:

* The example uses <URL:http://www.mipassoc.org/arf/> in the first
  part.  This page still points to an ARF draft published in 2008.
  The example should use <URL:http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5965>,
  folks reading the first part need to know that this is an RFC
  before they press DEL.  Once that's clear another link to MIPA
  is fine.
* The DKIM signature won't help if the Return-Path is empty (as
  discussed in RFC 5965) and the SPF HELO result is FAIL; maybe
  add a note that an SPF PASS result would be ideal.
* The third part in the example is obviously truncated.  RFC 5965
  says that it SHOULD be the complete mail, RFC 3462 and 3462bis
  say that reporting only a portion of the original mail is okay.
  Please add an explanation why your example ignored the SHOULD.

-Frank