[feedback-report] Revised draft charter, call for participation -- Please comment

[Douglas Otis]

On 9/23/09 12:22 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On Sep 23, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to participate but I have an issue with the
>>> deliverables.  Specifically, I am concerned with the possibility
>>>  that we may get stuck on discussing all the proposed extensions
>>>  before codifying the main draft. I would like to suggest that we
>>>  make standardizing the bare minimum of ARF first, and consider
>>> the extensions as a second step. If a larger scope format evolves
>>> from it, it may become ARF 2.0, but we need the 1.0 in place
>>> first.
>>
>> I believe this jives with what a few others have said.  I'm fine
>> with this approach if there's consensus.
>>
>> So if I were to rework the deliverables, effectively swapping (1)
>> and (2) from the current draft charter, it sounds like that would
>> make everyone happy.  Specifically, we would push to get ARF
>> finalized as minimally as possible (maybe even removing some stuff)
>> and then work on the suggested list of things, including the DKIM
>> stuff, as extensions.
>>
>> Do I hear any "+1"s?
>
> Yup, sounds like a good plan to me.

Yes. Start with:

,---
  The primary target for "generic" abuse reports (fraud, spam,
  virus, etcetera) would be the abuse desk of the organization
  accountable for originating the message. A document specifying where
  the target address can be found should also say how to identify such
  accountable originator, which is not a marginal task for a document or
  a WG dedicated to a format specification.
'---

The problem this attempts to address will not be resolved through
automation.  Any automation 'foo' will be gamed.  Resolving these issues
requires wet-ware.  It should be a safe assumption that automated
detection of spam will represent the main force causing a report to be
generated.

These reports should be considered similar to check processing at a bank
where exceptions require visual examination.  Such examination is not
facilitated by XML decorations.

-Doug