Re: [apps-discuss] Multipart/report, draft-kucherawy-rfc3462bis-01.txt

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

The MDN spec needs an update for other reasons. Now that YAM is dead, I 
might be persuaded to crack it open.

     Tony

On 7/28/2011 2:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 9:33 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: apps-discuss
>> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Multipart/report, draft-kucherawy-rfc3462bis-01.txt
>>
>> I'm happy to take those on as well as individual submissions in support
>> of the MARF work, assuming such work is limited to these small changes
>> doesn't become a kitchen sink for a massive collection of updates to
>> these three RFCs.  If it becomes a bigger update project, I think we're
>> talking about something YAM-like, or at least something that should
>> land in APPSAWG.
> Well, I started down this road and was delighted to find this sort of text in both the DSN and MDN documents:
>
> 3.  Format of a Message Disposition Notification
>
>     A message disposition notification is a MIME message with a top-level
>     content-type of multipart/report (defined in [RFC-REPORT]).  When
>     multipart/report content is used to transmit an MDN: ...
>
> So it seems removing the restriction entirely from RFC3462 is fine, because it's basically repeated here.  Hopefully that can just proceed then, and enables progress for MARF.
>
> The remaining issue, I think, is what Keith wants to see, which is an assertion that at generation time the above is required, but not when an existing one is forwarded inside a multipart.  I believe that will require only a slight wording change to DSN and MDN text shown above, but will also thus require publishing an update (clarification?) to two Draft Standards, one of which has updates from other documents.
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss