IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace-header-registry-01.txt

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Mon, 23 January 2012 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 ABAB321F86E8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:48:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 8oto3PToGA-2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:48:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D0D21F85A1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:48:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:48:29 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:48:28 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:48:27 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace-header-registry-01.txt
Thread-Index: AczZ0bdFo3lwNlMlSTilAmgN3SZwVwAHNC2w
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7D930@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120122220229.87477.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120123131953.GA36092@verdi>
In-Reply-To: <20120123131953.GA36092@verdi>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace-header-registry-01.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: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:48:29 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Leslie
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 5:20 AM
> To: John Levine
> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace-header-registry-01.txt
> 
>    For Authentication-Results, RFC5451 does indeed use lower-case "should"
> for "be treated as a Trace field," but it uses upper-case "SHOULD" for
> "be added at the top of the message" -- I think folks tend to think of
> both of these as RFC2119 "SHOULD".

I wish someone had caught that when I was getting that one published, but yes, both are supposed to be SHOULDs in the RFC2119 sense.

In order to avoid having this document mired in the "should" vs. "SHOULD" discussion, the authors here might want to consider just listing the drafts that ask for trace field status rather than making direct citations.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email