Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry

Dave CROCKER <> Mon, 16 January 2012 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C192521F86A9 for <>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:24:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jgfBnQYAmkWg for <>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:24:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E735521F86A7 for <>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0GHOGrI026578 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:24:23 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:24:14 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ned Freed <>
References: <20120114235207.20340.qmail@joyce.lan> <61D306C70A44794D8930CCB6@PST.JCK.COM> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201142235000.1943@joyce.lan> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:24:24 -0000

On 1/16/2012 8:09 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
> I have to agree with John Levine here - why can't this just be an added flag in
> the existiing header registry. The cost of that should be *far* lower than a
> new registry. In fact after experience with having additional purpose-specific
> media type registries (something we should never have allowed), I am *strongly*
> opposed to overlapping registries of any sort. (Right now I owe IANA a response
> about how in the blazes to address the current multiple registries for media
> types.)

I am still left with the basic concern, independent of whether this is a field 
in an existing registry or is a new registry:

      What is the utility of marking some fields as 'trace' fields?

      What coordination does it facilitate?  I really do not understand the point.

In the spec, it's useful to have the label 'trace' for education, to 
conceptually aggregate some fields.  But what is the /functional/ benefit of the 


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking