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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 23 January 2012 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 4D0CA21F86AD for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:30:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.615
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LEw8+Mp10tim for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3FA221F8596 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.234.130]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (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; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327332618; i=@elandsys.com; 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; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327332618; i=@elandsys.com; 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: <6.2.5.6.2.20120123061715.09faec70@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:28:58 -0800
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
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
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace-header-registry-01.txt
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, 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
>"SHOULD".

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.

Ok.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy