[feedback-report] draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-06

[SM]

At 23:16 28-01-2009, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>It could perhaps be worded better, but you can flip it around to get 
>the meaning:
>
>         To provide a method for recipients to advise providers that
>         they disagree with the provider's certifications or other
>         assertions about the message.

How about:

   To provide feedback to third parties affixing assertions about the message.

>It's my understanding that Standards Track is appropriate because 
>the draft contains a specification that is used across 
>administrative boundaries.  Thus, for example, SMTP is standards 
>track, but LMTP doesn't need to be.

In my opinion, the document is appropriate for the Standards 
Track.  The Security Considerations section may require some more 
work.  One of the considerations for a Standards Track document is 
that it requires the consensus of the IETF community.  That shouldn't 
be a problem if this draft is non-controversial.  I suggest narrowing 
down the specifications to the feedback report format and having the 
DKIM extension in a separate document .

At 02:22 29-01-2009, John R. Levine wrote:
>The example we had in mind is VBR, in which certifiers can say they 
>only vouch for, e.g. transactional mail, and senders can assert what 
>kind each message is.

Please see whether the text I suggested covers that example.

Regards,
-sm