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

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 18 January 2012 05:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C5C11E808F for <>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:13:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.622
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S2nyfRCCxDJu for <>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:13:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85E911E8083 for <>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:13:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0I5D5ZO011795 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:13:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1326863599;; bh=zMaT3yCnDVHYP6fwNqPLXUU4P2YiqPH1hYcknf1QgQE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=LYUkSRCF5H5AobvZzU/T11KzBOM8z7qYbgRw0WC/8gQF0i7WlL6n8yN1Hq+b/5MtY 7MqS7rXyEwVaGjdlsfny1KlmfdXXUeDKO05sDoLF0qJyVmfMpSrxFgqmIKL+QDWjuJ z1DB87Q8xAcfMyF6nXg/B7Yg69pKtYnQRJ4QCyRI=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1326863599;; bh=zMaT3yCnDVHYP6fwNqPLXUU4P2YiqPH1hYcknf1QgQE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=QXjE4dX3TmhCQT2S/WvQCiYWrQF88d24A0wXzahb8e8W2nVPyCB//NKuUwLiSj8TG cIKHHIBDLEuAdwgHIGQKkWSMBUZJLT/gX9cnX46x3ouGxeiK+6DxksZ6Ni3+7Zl52u QIbm7e7Dqy5gtNjDaKptr8MHE9OozvgcAT3S3wUI=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:09:41 -0800
To: "John Levine" <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <20120118021050.33898.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <> <20120118021050.33898.qmail@joyce.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Draft for trace 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:13:23 -0000

Hi John,
At 18:10 17-01-2012, John Levine wrote:
>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.

Yes.  I wrote about Trace fields in response to the latest 
discussions on this list.  draft-moonesamy-mail-trace-fields-00 
provides some background information about Trace fields, hence the 
reference to RFC 4871 (obsolete).   BTW, I already know about the 
invalid RFC822 reference.  The draft does not mention the registry 
part as you mentioned that you might work on that.

I only covered mail-related specifications mentioning Trace fields up 
to "VBR-Info" as they are related to the DKIM work.  RFC 5598 is not 
mentioned as it uses RFC 2505 (antispam) to reference "trace information".

I don't feel strongly about the question of Trace fields.  I'll 
comment on draft-levine-trace-header-registry-00 as we looked at the 
topic from different viewpoints.  Section 3.6 of RFC 5322 discusses 
about "trace header field" and has a requirement for not reordering 
them and a recommendation for keeping them in blocks (see issues in 
Section 6 of draft-moonesamy-mail-trace-fields-00).  Section 3.1 of 
draft-levine-trace-header-registry-00 keeps the requirement and drops 
the recommendation.  Such a change would generate some on-list discussion.

My preference is to use "trace information" to discuss about 
documenting the progress of a message through the e-mail system 
(second paragraph of Section 3.1 of your draft).  Section 3.6 of RFC 
5322 mentions that:

   "the trace header fields and resent header fields MUST NOT be reordered"

I'll defer to the editor of RFC 5322 as to what exactly is a Trace 
field as it is not clear given the text quoted above and what's in 
Section 3.6.7.

As a reply to Ned's question, I am ok with combining the two drafts 
if John thinks that the material is appropriate for the topic he is tackling.

S. Moonesamy