[feedback-report] Feedback types

[Steve Atkins]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 11:36:44AM -0700, Justin Rietz wrote:

> > 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.

The whole concept behind a standard reporting format is that it's, well,
standard. It's well-defined and can be reliably parsed and the semantics
of the report can be mechanically extracted and understood.

If there are any elements of the report that my code does not
understand then I have no way of knowing whether my partial parse of
the incoming report is an accurate understanding of what the report
is.

If a particular sender of reports and a particular receiver agree
bilaterally to an extension then that's solely between those two
parties, and there's absolutely nothing to stop them using that
extension. But that's a very different case to crafting a report
that has your own custom extensions, sending it to someone who
accepts ARF reports and expecting their code to understand what
the report means and to handle it correctly.

Cheers,
  Steve


> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> abuse-feedback-report mailing list
> abuse-feedback-report at mipassoc.org
> http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report