[feedback-report] "reality" check, was Revised draft charter

[Yakov Shafranovich]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk at cloudmark.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: abuse-feedback-report-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:abuse-
>> feedback-report-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:40 PM
>> To: ARF mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [feedback-report] "reality" check, was Revised draft
>> charter
>>
>> >> Well, of course.  But I think you will look in vain for any IETF
>> >> standard
>> >> that includes useful advice about how not to be stupid.
>> >>
>> >
>> > But it might be a good idea to have a separate draft with operational
>> > experience related to ARF so people are less likely to do stupid
>> > things.
>>
>> The (sole) value of ARF is to provide easy interoperability at the
>> transport
>> layer, and that's the sort of thing the IETF is good at.
>>
>> "Not being stupid" at the political layer is something that's likely to
>> be defined mostly by agreements between consenting parties who are
>> using ARF. It's something that's mostly orthogonal to the protocol
>> level work on ARF, and it may be something that's better
>> left to those who are actually producing or consuming feedback loops
>> - either through their contracts with each other or through an
>> organization like MAAWG that's a bit higher up the protocol stack
>> than the IETF.
>
> The IETF has produced BCP RFCs in the past.  For example, several of the documents the DKIM WG produced are information and provide guidance about implementation rather than protocol specification.
>
> An ARF WG could take that on as a task after its initial deliverables are completed.
>

The Spam OPS RFC comes to mind.