[feedback-report] Feedback types

[Justin Rietz]

> As this is relatively new, and there could be future requirements that
invite modification, then finding some type of convention for extending the
form seems useful.

> -Doug 

This was my thought.  I would like to see reporters be able to use custom
types without breaking the ARF standard, but allow recipients or the reports
to choose whether or not they want to accept the non-standard types.  Until
there is significant use of ARF, it is difficult to say what feedback types
will be the most usefull. With the risk of making things more complex, their
could be a central repository where reporters could post definitions of
their custom feedback types.  Just a though.

Is there a next step to take in order to make an official proposal and get a
"yea" or "nay"?

-Justin


-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:YakovS at solidmatrix.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 1:59 PM
To: Justin Rietz
Cc: abuse-feedback-report at mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [feedback-report] Feedback types

Justin Rietz wrote:
> I apologize in advance if this has been discussed previously - I am 
> new to this list and wasn't able to find anything in the archives.
> 
> Regarding feedback types, the spec says that these are extensible, but 
> that new types need to be approved. Two questions:
> 
> **Was there consideration given to allowing custom feedback types as 
> long as they followed the specified format? There could still be 
> required types that everyone would have to support. This would allow 
> for customization based upon the scenario in which the standard is 
> being used, and an entity receiving ARF reports could chose to accept 
> or reject custom types.
> 

At this time there is no provision for custom types. However, I have been
thinking to either allow "x-*" types like other IETF standards AND/OR
mentioning in the draft that unknown types should be ignored.

> **I am unclear on how the proposal/acceptance process works for new 
> feedback types? If someone had a type they would like to propose now, 
> what would they need to do?
> 

It would follow the standard IANA procedures for where a designated expert
is used (see RFC 2434). In practice, the IESG, IANA and its appointed expert
would decide on the proper procedure. It would probably be something like a
public post to mailing list and a four week review, although IANA or IESG
might decide otherwise.

To propose a new type now, the best way is to post a message here and
describe what you have in mind. Since the specification has not been
submitted yet to the IETF for approval, it is a bit fluid.

Yakov