Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 13 January 2012 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE9F21F8559 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:25:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.641
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HhIGF+8uJMup for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:25:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7DA021F8554 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:25:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0DHPhrf027021 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:25:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326475549; i=@resistor.net; bh=XyCJyUTr8nXz3bMD+eqExkmp5BXbolQ4srz1/nAzECM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=saK/Z1+6Bq3q+OyLuim5FaGdmJAyLyJOiSj/c57rUl7vWwWxsbrTDT9oZmxxDn/CY CH9tUr/BSsFMv56LoQrwZ5dDc5EWnVP6se3la41eyatK6gVQCGqYRANRFIM2uULmZM ZWy+xnYkX1RFI3n7REqkQhuSyAEuW9tJaBIW8JAs=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120113085624.09424d58@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:01:46 -0800
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15818@EXCH-C2.corp.cl oudmark.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15818@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:25:58 -0000

At 13:06 11-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>Can I get a show of support (or objection) to processing this through APPSAWG?

This draft registers a new optional clause that can be used in trace 
fields.  I support the processing.

BTW, the normative reference to RFC 5322 ([MAIL] reference in ABNF) is missing.

Regards,
-sm