IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Draft for trace fields registry

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Wed, 18 January 2012 06:23 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 3DECB21F86C6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:23:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.582
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, 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 gk4jZ-Nx5uEz for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:23:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A5721F86C5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:23:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:23:18 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:23:27 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:23:30 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Draft for trace fields registry
Thread-Index: AczVh+b2jA71ywagQS6cWlYn9KBhiQAIaPOg
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C158D8@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <4F15A667.4030708@dcrocker.net> <20120118021050.33898.qmail@joyce.lan> <01OAWJAQ2AOA0137RD@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01OAWJAQ2AOA0137RD@mauve.mrochek.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Draft for trace fields registry
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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:23:28 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ned Freed
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:21 PM
> To: John Levine
> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Draft for trace fields registry
> 
> > I wrote a draft to add a trace column to the existing header field
> > registry.  This is mostly about the registry; SM's draft (which I
> > didn't know he was writing) is more about what trace fields are.
> 
> Would it make sense to you and SM to combine them?

I like the idea of doing all of the "trace header field" cleanup work we're talking about in a single document.

However, all of this seems orthogonal to the processing of the "received-state" draft, because I still think tagging Received fields in that way is the right thing to do.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email