The MARF Working Group requests the publication of draft-ietf-marf-as as a Proposed Standard.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
This document, aimed at Proposed Standard, is an Applicability Statement that covers typical MARF use cases. It is meant to be used, and progressed along the Standards Track, alongside with the MARF base specification. The title page specifies "Standards Track".
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
RFC 5965 defines an extensible, machine-readable format intended for
mail operators to report feedback about received email to other
parties. This Applicability Statement describes common methods for
utilizing this format for reporting both abuse and authentication
failure events. Mailbox Providers of any size, mail sending
entities, and end users can use these methods as a basis to create
procedures that best suit them. Some related optional mechanisms are
Working Group Summary
The primary contention point in the development of this document involved
what and how much to include, striking a balance between an Applicability
Statement and an "implementation cookbook". Because we have limited
recent experience with Applicability Statements, the participants were not
sure what belongs in them, and what constitutes "too much detail" that's
best left for other forms of documentation.
In the end, the working group produced a version that most of the
participants could be happy with, and the document as presented has the
broad support of the MARF working group.
This document reflects the current MARF implementations in the field,
of which there are many. That said, we do expect that it might be
modified over time, as the MARF base specification itself matures along
the Standards Track.
Barry Leiba is the document shepherd; Pete Resnick is the
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
I have reviewed the final version of the document in detail, and I believe it is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. (I also reviewed earlier versions, as it developed in the working group).
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
No concerns. The document has broad consensus in the working group, and is solid.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
No IPR disclosures have been filed, and the editor is not aware of any IPR claims. I have also asked the working group as a whole about IPR claims, and no one has come forward.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There is broad consensus within the working group. That said, relatively few participants remain active at this point, so that consensus consists of about a half dozen individuals.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.
This document refers normatively to RFC 5598, "Internet Mail Architecture", which is Informational.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
This document, as an Applicability Statement for the MARF base protocol, updates RFC 5965. The Abstract and Introduction both explain the situation.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
There are no IANA actions in this document, and the IANA Considerations section says that.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
I've run the stuff through the standard idnits checker. There is no ABNF and no other formal language in this document.