IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 17 January 2012 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 3C3B321F8473 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:36:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.618
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 2jgnTLs1I5pQ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED6921F846F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:36:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1326825384; bh=jieM098mAji0XH6wc9PjEV/sI1DmVYS/SvKTecMxJwA=; l=285; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=LwR9a5inYLsbbuRtArPpOue1vo4mUnmtl5hYuljbSXXk6E5DZRTjYgHFEZ9UVd1Vs MON6YEMb9LyPcUwoqZbP3ZcF4D0sCtE3PDDDa9EYSPC1QFKW/n9FR8b+9Ho3nlCpED d3SskX+RA5ridvbZkL/Lz/fXFBHy/9RD3qPgCjhc=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:36:24 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F15BFA8.00004C5A
Message-ID: <4F15BFA8.6010608@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:36:24 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <20120115201817.34086.qmail@joyce.lan> <4F15A667.4030708@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F15A667.4030708@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry
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: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:36:26 -0000

On 17/Jan/12 17:48, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> RFC5321 equates it only to Received.  RFC5322 uses it to describe a
> class of fields.

RFC 5321 also defines Return-Path, of course.  As both definitions are
given in Section 4.4, one could derive that they are both "Trace
Information".

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email