[feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft

[John R Levine]

I put it here, in xml and html: http://www.taugh.com/arf/.  It would be nice to 
have a new draft sent in to I-D in time for MAAWG.

Paul and I went through and fixed a bunch of stuff that made xml2rfc complain 
(if it complains, the RFC editor will complain), along with what are intended 
to be minor edits for style and consistency.

We added these two feedback types.  If people hate them, we can take them back 
out:

  * miscategorized - indicates that the content categorization applied in
    connection with a certification or reputation system was incorrect

  * not-spam - indicates that a message that was tagged or categorized as
    spam (such as by an ISP) is not spam

The former is intended to send back to a certifier or reputation provider, the 
second to your own ISP or mail host to tune their filters. Like every other 
content type, these are just assertions by whoever's sending the report, which 
the receiving system is free to interpret or not interpret any way it wants.


Near the end, there's a list of questions added in previous versions.  If we 
can agree on the answers to some or all of them we can update the draft and 
take out the questions.

1.  Whether encoding of the machine readable part should be limited
     to 7-bit

2.  Whether there is a need for both "opt-out" and "opt-out-list",
     and whether this format should be used for opt-outs at all.

3.   Whether the "from" address should be required to be a human just
     like other RFCs in the "message/report" family.

4.  Whether there is a need for a new header to indicate munging of
     the included email message.

5.  Whether different type of convention should be allowed for
     subject lines.

6.  Whether there should be different types defined for
     "Reported-Uri" to better indicate to the report receiver how they are
     related to the email message in question.

Suggested answers:

1. yes, everyone can decode base64 and it avoids issues of silent munging by 
intermediate systems

3, 5, and 6. no, current practice is that they are whatever the reporting
party wants them to be

4. no, current practice doesn't, "it's munged" doesn't tell you anything
of use that you couldn't guess anyway, and if you ask people to tell you
exactly how it's munged, they won't.

R's,
John






Regards,
John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.