He's not talking about the filename; the short title is what's printed
at the top of every page. It comes from the "abbrev" parameter in the
"title" element in the XML. It can be changed with an RFC Editor
note.
The sponsoring AD would like to know what is desired in the RFC Editor note:
What would you like the short title to be? "CFBL Recommendations"?
Yes, that's consistent with the main title.
said, I'm happy to have you fix it with other items (such as
s/codify/document, etc.) as such come up.
Of course.
As for the "About MAAWG": Personally, I think it would be better to put the
paragraph in the Acknowledgments section, or it could be simply put as a
paragraph in the References section under reference [1]. I find the Last
Call discussion pretty convincing that this text is untoward in the
Abstract.
I think those are reasonable compromises, but, of course, I can't
speak for J.D. I suggest moving the second paragraph of the Abstract
into a new "Introduction" section that comes first in the body (new
Section 1). Put the footnote [1] to MAAWG there, and then put the
"about MAAWG" text in the footnote. Everyone understand that? Makes
sense? I think that works better than putting it in the Acks.
So it would look like this:
-----------------------------------
Abstract
(First paragraph of current abstract.)
Status of this Memo
(boilerplate)
Copyright Notice
(boilerplate)
Table of Contents
(as generated)
1. Introduction
This paper is the result of cooperative efforts within the Messaging
Anti-Abuse Working Group [1], a trade organization separate from the
IETF. The original MAAWG document upon which this document is
based was published in April, 2010. While not originally written as an
Internet Draft, it has been contributed to the IETF standards
repository in order to make it easier to incorporate this material
into IETF work.
2. Glossary of Standard Terms
(as current)
...etc...
9. References
(citations as current)
[1] MAAWG <http://www.maawg.org/> is the largest global industry
association working against Spam, viruses, denial-of-service attacks
and other online exploitation. Its' members include ISPs, network
and mobile operators, key technology providers and volume sender
organizations. It represents over one billion mailboxes worldwide
and its membership contributed their expertise in developing this
description of current Feedback Loop practices.
[2] (as current; etc)
-----------------------------------
Unlike Eliot, I am not as worried about substantive content complaints.
These are recommendations from MAAWG, and they are being published as an
informational, non-consensus document so that a WG can refer to the
document. Such a WG may agree with all of the recommendations, but more
likely will have some alternative advice when referring to this document.
Exactly, and that's what MARF is doing. So, yes, I agree with this approach.
Barry
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf