Re: [apps-discuss] Trace headers, was Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 15 January 2012 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 E799321F8471 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:16:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.496, 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 t15akhBdrjUl for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:16:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3989821F8468 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:16:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 5688 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2012 20:16:35 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 15 Jan 2012 20:16:35 -0000
Date: 15 Jan 2012 20:16:13 -0000
Message-ID: <20120115201613.34004.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <54978B203C73F673C5287DE3@PST.JCK.COM>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Trace headers, was 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: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:16:37 -0000

>> It's certainly time for a trace field registry.  And I suppose
>> that if we have one, adding new trace fields isn't that big a deal.
>
>I don't have any problem with such a registry.  It seems to me
>that you've done most of the work of identifying what should be
>in it.  Personally, I'd rather see either separate subregistries
>for MTA and MUA trace info or a field that distinguishes the
>former from the latter.  Do you want to generate the I-D?  I'm
>happy to review and/or help as needed.

Sure.  My list above was generated using my favorite semantic analysis
tool, grep, on my directory full of RFCs.

I sort of see your distinction between MTA and MUA headers, although I
don't see anything in the list other than Resent-* that strikes me as
something an MUA would do.  The closest is Auto-Submitted: for SIEVE
mailto: notifications, something that's in the MDA or maybe MSA.

R's,
John