Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis: PS or DS?

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Ned Freed wrote:

>>RFC3462 is currently DS.  There's some question as to whether or not this
>>revision qualifies to remain at DS, or forces a recycle at PS.
>>    
>>
>
>Why not try for recycle at DS and see what the IESG says?
>  
>
For such a small issue I don't see much problems with recycling at DS, 
especially if there is evidence that the restriction being removed is 
not obeyed in non DSN contexts.

>>The only material change is the removal of a constraint.  On the face of it,
>>it would seem that this doesn't disqualify it from remaining at DS.    
>>
>
>In general that's not true - removal of a constraint that would affect
>implementations generating the format in some way is something I would
>see as requiring a reset to proposed.
>
>But since this doesn't affect the associated direct uses of multipart/report -
>the constraint is not removed for them - it's difficult to argue that this has
>any effect on the usage described in original DSN/MDN specifications. It does
>affect new uses of multipart/report for other purposes, but that's fine.
>
>  
>
>>In addition, Ned has said that many implementations ignore the constraint, so
>>it's harmless to remove it.   (Ned, could you elucidate on this in support of
>>one position or the other?)    
>>
>
>AFAIK in practice nobody ever tried to prevent *indirect* uses of
>multipart/report in places other than top-level, e.g., no MUA I'm aware of
>will, when incorporating a DSN/MDN as part of a forwarded message, digest, or
>whatever, change the media type to avoid violating this constraint, it seems
>that implementations have already had to deal with it and haven't had any
>problems.
>
>But really, I don't see why we should wring our hands over this. Let's make the
>change and ask for a recycle at draft, possibly asking for small exception in
>order to relax the constraint without a reset. Make sure this is mentioned in
>the last call - let's please not repeat *that* mistake.
>
Good point.

>And if there are no
>objections and the IESG goes along, fine, and if not, it gets reset to proposed
>and we advance it without republising in exactly six months. I mean, it's not
>like we have to do the interop thing over again in this case.  
>