IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00.txt

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Thu, 01 September 2011 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
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 A3B8221F9625 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.022
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.423, 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 PKf35x19a0GT for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BA121F9621 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:56:31 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:56:29 -0700
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00.txt
Thread-Index: Acxos9b2mOInydVyT/CEXxoRNFZNvgAHIarw
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DFA16@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF99D@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <20110901143104.11470.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20110901143104.11470.qmail@joyce.lan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00.txt
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: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:54:59 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 7:31 AM
> To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00.txt
> 
> Assuming we all agree that the rule requiring multipart/report at
> the top level of a DSN goes in in other places, it looks fine to me.

Right, and I think Tony said he'd crack open DSN and NDN if they needed to be updated to reflect this.  (But then I seem to recall looking at them and, to my surprise, finding that they already said what's needed.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email