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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

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