Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace-header-registry-01.txt

S Moonesamy <> Mon, 23 January 2012 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0CA21F86AD for <>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:30:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.615
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LEw8+Mp10tim for <>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3FA221F8596 for <>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0NFU34c014212 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:30:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1327332618;; bh=uO11Saql+gLjPxxeHs+hXkSzxvChee+vQvRMatPbUCo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=GaITPmZfwvgB8l9gTBSyqeqxP0ZCkOFQChhIWbmtQABpov+Ov1LH2wiJboIVEKCQ3 6hsWn0OlKPvGpR6Tborkca3f0M0V7yUCXczY3iT74MkiKSYwf2YWdVCeitz/6V2qLh LoA47eS0BG1rUZ5Y+d3y+Jf1rwCnwW4loWPTNa3g=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1327332618;; bh=uO11Saql+gLjPxxeHs+hXkSzxvChee+vQvRMatPbUCo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=lGgTwObFdlzCdk8e+y/1rOMcv1j5tfLzl0HPpbBqW8mTOxKViYKRp1qxAwQss2gT9 JpeS/JuRbMQnYCGXh0/AcRq9h7o6W6ZN1o4XGJ5uupaIdnSTlWMdXFmjbvovsnFI4e kb5MP9FH87nCvSEmps1gw7d6qNwrPFCsClBiYjns=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:28:58 -0800
To: John Leslie <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <20120123131953.GA36092@verdi>
References: <20120122220229.87477.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120123131953.GA36092@verdi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace-header-registry-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:30:24 -0000

Hi John,

Thanks for the feedback.

At 05:19 23-01-2012, John Leslie wrote:
>    But I stumbled over the difference (if any) between RFC2119 SHOULD and
>lower-case "should".
>    I expect at least one IESG member would also stumble. I advise clarifying
>if possible.

Would the argument that Section 3.1 mentions that "Further 
restrictions may be defined for Trace fields  by the specifications 
that provide for their use" convince you?

>    DKIM-Signature's "should" is quoting RFC6376, where it is a "SHOULD",
>unless I misunderstand.
>    For Authentication-Results, RFC5451 does indeed use lower-case "should"
>for "be treated as a Trace field," but it uses upper-case "SHOULD" for
>"be added at the top of the message" -- I think folks tend to think of
>both of these as RFC2119 "SHOULD".
>    For VBR-Info, RFC5518 uses "SHOULD".
>    For Auto-Submitted, RFC5436 AFAICT uses "MUST", not "SHOULD" or "should".
>    My take on this is that we'd do best to replace those five "should" with

That can be read as updating the requirements in those 
specifications.  Section 3.2 could be moved to an appendix.  The 
following paragraph, adapted from RFC 6125, could be used:

   This informative section is to delineate the history of thinking about
   Trace fields in mail-related specifications.  It gathers together
   the text from various RFCs (the key words [RFC 2119] have been modified
   as this document does not indicate requirement levels for those RFCs).

>    The remaining "should" in Section 4, I'd simply remove.


S. Moonesamy