Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01.txt

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Ned Freed wrote:

>> [e-mail] wrote:
>
>> >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>> directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area 
>> Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
>> >
>> >    Title           : The Multipart/Report Media Type for the 
>> Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages
>> >    Author(s)       : Murray S. Kucherawy
>> >    Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01.txt
>> >    Pages           : 15
>> >    Date            : 2011-09-21
>> >
>> >   The multipart/report Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
>> >   media type is a general "family" or 
>> "container" type for electronic
>> >   mail reports of any kind.  Although this memo defines only the 
>> use of
>> >   the multipart/report media type with respect to delivery status
>> >   reports, mail processing programs will benefit if a single media 
>> type
>> >   is used for all kinds of reports.
>> >
>> >   This memo obsoletes RFC3462.
>> >
>> >
>> The new version addresses my earlier concerns.
>> One small new issue:
>
>> The newly added:
>> 5. Registering New Report Types  
>
>>     Registration of new media types for the purpose of creating a new
>>     report format SHOULD note in the Intended Usage section of the media
>>     type registration that the type being registered is suitable for use
>>     as a report-type in the context of this specification.
>
>> What does "suitable for use as a report-type" means exactly?
>
> It means you're supposed to say something like:
>
>    This media type is suitable for use in report-type parts per 
> RFC3462bis.
>
> in the Intended Usage section of the type registration.

Ok, maybe this is just me, but I don't think this is clear. Maybe say 
"suitable for use as the second body part of a multipart/report" instead?

> In other words, this is a recommended action, not some sort of 
> registration
> criteria the type must meet.
>
>> Do you mean
>> the name of the new media type can be used as the value of this 
>> attribute?
>
> No, that's a given for such types.