Source Ports in Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) Reports
RFC 6692

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

Barry Leiba Yes

(Pete Resnick) Yes

Comment (2012-06-12 for -04)
No email
send info
If you wanted to tighten up the syntax, you could do:

  source-port = "Source-Port:" [CFWS] 1*5DIGIT [CFWS] CRLF

since a port number can't be more than 5 digits. But entirely up to you.

(Sean Turner) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2012-06-18 for -04)
No email
send info
- Not really a DISCUSS but please consider the following comment (or please justify your choice)

I looked at http://www.iana.org/assignments/marf-parameters/marf-parameters.xml for the Source-IP definition, and see: 
           Source-IP: IPv4 or IPv6 address from which the original message was received

Now at look at Source-Port definition in the draft, and see:
	   TCP source port from which the reported connection originated

Don't you think those two definitions should be aligned, as they are related?
What I have in mind is: TCP source port from which the original message was received

- Also, the following sentence doesn't seem quite right
   When present in a report, it MUST contain the TCP source port matching the
   "Source-IP" field in the same report, thereby describing completely
   the origin of the abuse incident. 

Looking at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5965#section-3.2 as a guideline:

       o  "Source-IP" contains an IPv4 or IPv6 address of the MTA from which
          the original message was received.  Addresses MUST be formatted as
          per section 4.1.3 of [SMTP].

I'm wondering, don't you want to write something such as:
   When present in a report, it MUST contain the TCP source port of the MTA 
   from which the reported connection originated (characterized by the 
   "Source-IP" field in the same report), thereby describing completely
   the origin of the abuse incident.

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Comment (2012-06-19 for -04)
No email
send info
(Summarizing an IM conversation with Murray)
This appears to extend 5965 rather than update it. It would also help to more clearly point to exactly what in  RFC6591 is being updated.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection