Re: [apps-discuss] Multipart/report, draft-kucherawy-rfc3462bis-01.txt

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:40 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Multipart/report, draft-kucherawy-rfc3462bis-01.txt
> 
> >> Does that mean top-level implies "active"?
> >
> > You know, I was thinking about that as well. It's clear than active DSNs and
> > MDNs have to be top-level but that doesn't mean the converse is necessarily
> > true.
> 
> Plus: it would allow an ABNF-like definition of "active",
> minus: inactive messages would then have to be wrapped.
> [...]

I think this is better stated in the DSN and MDN updates we're now considering, and maybe in ARF if we decide to update it.  It's not clear that all uses of multipart/report forever and ever will need to make this distinction, and we're talking about removing the top-level restriction from it entirely now anyway.

It sounds like the path forward is to remove the restriction from multipart/report altogether, which is safe because it's already stated on MDN and DSN as well.  This would satisfy MARF's needs.  We can then look at clarifying DSN and MDN if/when we feel doing that would be useful.