[apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state-01
SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 21 May 2012 19:56 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 6345621F85E4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 YWrsrhiV+Eov for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C5821F85C5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
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 q4LJuOQq025475 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337630189; i=@resistor.net; bh=ZexpP89hcQh9NROPovprv+/BnATLDwno0AIpNTJJ2Qw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=nQY+mqsicV9GylXFaRkpC0F2BXt2N8nt0CU7//ruX1HA8bM9BTANitzR1AD3HSY31 4Ajh+hgqQuMgsT9L1Vn42xDbdLtjEMLarmcgCebK+6ankK/atJwaiQ21DBR3meD34z oeEcVbZ6PTUlfGQ5x5g2ybXo8xPuzcUhXyAY5dkY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1337630189; i=@resistor.net; bh=ZexpP89hcQh9NROPovprv+/BnATLDwno0AIpNTJJ2Qw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=NHOcnI/0g7oKpGyQHB/4G/fg5+iQldOCz72T3FkFqyhfjjLBQJbUJqMh3mSirZcv1 G4s3rAOtyQMiZF5VUBrqhoUfegHskVZQ1qjUIGXDH5oX74ZkUVKEvsp9tNuV5sjtcS p8REn9JAaQQovZ28c9c7CczuZ7UagyzyG9PCeKA8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120521122813.0a8fba20@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:56:13 -0700
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state-01
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: Mon, 21 May 2012 19:56:32 -0000
Hi Murray,
I have a few comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state-01. It's
ready to ship.
Issues:
In Section 3:
'This memo creates a new trace field clause, called "state", which can
be used to indicate the nature of a delay imposed on relaying of a
message toward its recipient(s).'
Does this apply to all trace fields (see
draft-levine-trace-header-registry-01 for some of those header fields)?
Nits:
In Section 5:
"that the Received fields present on a message could be counted by"
I suggest using "header fields".
The IANA reference can be informative.
Regards,
-sm