Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

On 1/14/2012 5:57 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>  I'm suggesting that the time may have come to
> add one or more rather than continuing to overload "Received:".

"continuing to"?  please explain the history of overloading that has taken 
place; I'm not aware of it.

Please then explain how the current proposal exceeds a reasonable enhancement of 
the Received field.  "received" refers to transitions.  The enhancement merely 
documents more transitions.

Please also note that creating a separate kind of header field, such as for 
transitions /within/ a host, will then require correlating the /within/ fields 
and the /between/ (Received:) fields.  If you think there is anything about the 
current situation that is a kluge, you ain't seen nothing' yet.


> And here we go down that rathole:  I hope that 5321 and 5322 are
> consistent, but, if there were any respect in which they were
> not, we get back to the old question of which one is
> authoritative: 5321 because creating the things and putting them
> in is the responsibility of the MTA or 5322 because they are,
> after all, header field names.

What is it that will cause us to go down that rathole?  There's nothing in the 
current proposal that creates the potential for loss of synchrony between 5321 
and 5322.  So how is your concern relevant here?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net