Email Feedback Report Type Value: not-spam
draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback-03

[Ballot comment]
Would be nice if the Abstract gave context by mentioning "email"

---

Random thought: is there also a need for an ARF to report when a
message has mistakenly been reported as mistakenly reported as spam?
That would be a "not-not-spam report". This would seem to be necessary
as you include the possiblity of a user accidentally pressing a "not
spam" button.

---

  There are anti-spam systems that use "not spam" feedback today.

Presumably, this is non-standard "not spam" feedback?

---

Section 2

  In the first MIME part of the feedback report message, the end user
  or the email client can add information to indicate why the message
  is not spam -- for example, because the originator or its domain is
  well known.

s/can/MAY/ ?

---

Overall, I had trouble finding where in this document anything was
actually defined. I don't suppose that is really a problem, but it
was a bit surprising.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single
action which IANA must complete.

In the Feedback Report Type Values registry in the Messaging Abuse
Reporting Format (MARF) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/marf-parameters/marf-parameters.xml

a new registration will be added as follows:

Feedback Type Name Description Reference Status
------------------ ----------------- ------------- -------------
not-spam Indicates that a message is [ RFC-to-be ] current
not spam. This may be used
to correct a message that
was incorrectly tagged or
categorized as spam.

IANA understands that this is the only action required upon approval of
this document.

[Ballot comment]
To avoid endless philosophical debates about what is and is not spam, I suggest changing "Indicates that a message is not spam" to "Indicates that the entity providing the report does not consider the message to be spam" (or somesuch).

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

I (Murray Kucherawy) am the document shepherd. I have reviewed the document and find it is ready for review by the IESG.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document has received review from inside the WG (as shown in the list archive) and from one person outside. Given the fairly trivial nature of what the document is trying to accomplish, I have not solicited further external review. I have no concerns.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

None.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

I have no concerns and the WG has expressed no concerns either.

(1.e) 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?

Those that have provided reviews have no problems with it other than the fact that they are sometimes disconnected from its specific use case.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes. There are no downward references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes, the IANA Considerations section is in order.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

There are no such sections.

(1.k) 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:

Technical Summary

This document defines a new Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) feedback
report type value: "not-spam". It can be used to report a message
that was mistakenly marked as spam.

Working Group Summary

The Working Group found this a simple and non-controversial extension.

Document Quality

This extension is added to parallel similar capabilities in the mobile
equivalent of ARF, known as SpamRep. In that light, there are existing
implementations on the mobile side, and this work seeks to maintain the
same parallelism that otherwise already exists. Thus, the requirement
for this capability has already received thorough review and assent
within the OMA.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Email Feedback Report Type Value : not-spam) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format
WG (marf) to consider the following document:
- 'Email Feedback Report Type Value : not-spam'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-09-22. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a new Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) feedback
  report type value: "not-spam".  It can be used to report a message
  that was mistakenly marked as spam.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.