Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00.txt

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Wed, 14 September 2011 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 5CADA21F8BBF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.478
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 K4qRZ12zNaOb for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com (out3.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7972621F8BA9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45D324CD4; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:09:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:09:05 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id :references:to; s=smtpout; bh=NnU0/L/znBFq4eMCwJWMlu7Ajhg=; b=MO 72/d4QnZD61CK9Tj8SFE/PqcKVbuxzWBZTO3NVn3N76NZ4ekD0UGe+zfnHKUDUqu VhodAOQxKv0raFHV1VH+rOSUgT4gYmCu2ofeC6LfgP2exbpkHyel+3sJ7IHWZWzD 3JodhVYi3k8WxDoXw1RX3fcIST9XZnQ/cMKiOxJJ0=
X-Sasl-enc: aW0kb9dz497sUI+a/am57aFVDyoQ57LdFabDzsy5olN9 1316020145
Received: from host65-16-145-177.birch.net (host65-16-145-177.birch.net [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F37F2AC0294; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:09:04 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DFC44@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:09:03 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <83FC8B77-CD70-4A25-B639-86879F645DDB@network-heretics.com>
References: <20110830041853.24036.37.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF99D@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <C0FA01F1-E62B-41E1-9093-73E536AB666D@network-heretics.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DFC44@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00.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: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:06:57 -0000

On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@network-heretics.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:38 AM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00.txt
>> 
>> I'm not happy with the current draft.  I would prefer that it say
>> something about use of multipart/report when generating DSNs and MDNs.
> 
> I think the discussion I've heard so far is satisfied with the fact that the DSN and MDN drafts repeat the "top-most" requirement, so there's no need to assert it here as well (making it a requirement for those and all future uses of multipart/report, which is exactly what MARF does not want).

Ok.  I won't make an issue about this.   I agree that the DSN and MDN RFCs is the right place to put these restrictions.

Keith