Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace-header-registry-01.txt

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Mon, 23 January 2012 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.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 46D4221F873E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:26:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 niyxC+7S9qbW for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:26:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A507721F873C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:26:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 9E5ED33C22; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:26:34 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:26:34 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Message-ID: <20120123202634.GC36092@verdi>
References: <20120122220229.87477.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120123131953.GA36092@verdi> <6.2.5.6.2.20120123061715.09faec70@resistor.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120123061715.09faec70@resistor.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace-header-registry-01.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: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:26:35 -0000

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
> 
> That can be read as updating the requirements in those specifications.

   Making the "should" lower-case doesn't fix that problem.

> Section 3.2 could be moved to an appendix.

   I don't think that's necessary, though it wouldn't bother me, I think
it helps to have the body introduce these "new" trace headers.

   We could remove these "shoulds" just like I proposed for Section 4...

> The following paragraph, adapted from RFC 6125, could be used:
> 
>   This informative section is to delineate the history of thinking about
>   Trace fields in mail-related specifications.  It gathers together
>   the text from various RFCs (the key words [RFC 2119] have been modified
>   as this document does not indicate requirement levels for those RFCs).

   I don't like that text, especially the part claiming to quote, but
modifying.

   Many folks believe that a lower-case "should" is still a RFC2119
keyword -- it's better not to open that argument.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>