IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Mon, 16 January 2012 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
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 E239921F86A5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:31:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.36
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.620, BAYES_20=-0.74, 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 GDQKXCIVEEJY for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:31:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130A221F85B4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:31:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:35805) by ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1Rmw1q-0004zc-EQ (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:31:54 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1Rmw1q-0005w8-E1 (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:31:54 +0000
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:31:54 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <AD693E95D4252DC3E8F3832F@PST.JCK.COM>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1201162328340.29180@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15818@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15859@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmar k.com> <AD693E95D4252DC3E8F3832F@PST.JCK.COM>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?
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, 16 Jan 2012 23:31:59 -0000

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>
> While I have no problem at all with the type of facility the
> draft proposes, I think that, if we are going to entertain this
> sort of thing, we should have a serious discussion about how far
> we want to go in extending "Received:"

Wouldn't this just be re-hashing a discussion that we already had quite
recently? Murray's draft uses an extensibility hook (the
Additional-Registered-Clauses ABNF production) that was added in RFC 5321.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Viking, North Utsire: Southerly 4 or 5. Slight or moderate. Showers then fair.
Good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email