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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 16 January 2012 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 75F7921F8677 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:59:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 mXA4CwKT80Eg for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEAFB21F8615 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:59:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OAUJB09PNK015AGA@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:59:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OARPS2OYZK000HW1@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:59:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01OAUJAX2HRI000HW1@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:57:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:08:33 +0000" <20120115200833.33736.qmail@joyce.lan>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <01OAT5KFXSHA000HW1@mauve.mrochek.com> <20120115200833.33736.qmail@joyce.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, 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 15:59:59 -0000

> >While I am unaware of any standards usage of this particular extensibility
> >feature, ever since it was defined there has been some ad-hoc use of it. I have
> >not observed any issues with this usage. To the extent there have been
> >problems, it's been with obsolete forms that have never worked well and jsut a
> >general failure to implement basic stuff like date-time parsing propoerly.

> I've written my share of received header parsers (it's unavoidable if
> you want to send a non-trivial number of abuse reports) and I will
> agree that extra clauses are not an issue.  The problem, as usual, is
> people who don't read the spec at all before they start coding, and
> there's not much we can do about that.

Exactly. And given eixsting use of nonstandard clauses any parser that fails to
handle them is not materially different from one that fails to handle other
syntax details.

I completely fail to see why we should be catering to this level of brokennness
at this late date.

					Ned