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

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,
At 15:20 18-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>And an interesting observation: When I wrote RFC5451, my goal was to 
>call Authentication-Results a trace field specifically because 
>preserving the order of addition of Received fields with this mixed 
>in is an important hint to figuring out where, and perhaps why, 
>message authentication work ran into problems.  So I only wanted to 
>piggyback on the "don't reorder or change this" rule that had 
>already been laid out rather than re-stating

Several other specifications have followed the piggyback path.  In my 
opinion, the question is worth discussing as it is not clear whether 
it is an acceptable practice.

>  it.  However, it also has an end-user purpose, which you correctly 
> called post-delivery MUA information.  That part isn't exactly 
> trace information per se, or maybe it is but it's actually 
> MUA-actionable.  So that header field is actually a mix of both 
> types of header field, I suppose: Agents should all follow trace 
> header field handling rules, but it actually contains actionable 
> stuff.  I'm hoping it doesn't thus deserve its own hybrid category...

It's easier to pretend not to see this part instead of trying to come 
up with a hybrid category. :-)

>I think perhaps the amalgamated draft we seem to see forming between 
>John's and SM's proposals might do well to talk about situations 
>where each approach (Additional-Registered-Clause vs. new header 
>field) is more appropriate.

I haven't discussed the approach to take with John Levine.  I don't 
have a preference at the moment.

Regards,
-sm