Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Tue, 17 January 2012 15:40 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 9AEBA21F8699 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:40:22 -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 HdnlOskmEwBZ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:40:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2959521F8600 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:40:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OAVWWWHNU80013YM@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:40:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OAV4R81PYO0137RD@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:40:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01OAVWWPTGN60137RD@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:37:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:24:14 -0800" <4F145D3E.8040502@dcrocker.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format=flowed
References: <20120114235207.20340.qmail@joyce.lan> <61D306C70A44794D8930CCB6@PST.JCK.COM> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201142235000.1943@joyce.lan> <4F132D04.1020003@dcrocker.net> <01OAUJQ57QIA000HW1@mauve.mrochek.com> <4F145D3E.8040502@dcrocker.net>
To: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] possibleTrace fields registry
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: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:40:22 -0000

> On 1/16/2012 8:09 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
> > I have to agree with John Levine here - why can't this just be an added flag in
> > the existiing header registry. The cost of that should be *far* lower than a
> > new registry. In fact after experience with having additional purpose-specific
> > media type registries (something we should never have allowed), I am *strongly*
> > opposed to overlapping registries of any sort. (Right now I owe IANA a response
> > about how in the blazes to address the current multiple registries for media
> > types.)


> I am still left with the basic concern, independent of whether this is a field
> in an existing registry or is a new registry:

>       What is the utility of marking some fields as 'trace' fields?

An obvious one is certain types of forwarding and digesting, where you
want to strip trace information. Logging of trace also comes to mind. Our
software has several lists of fields in it that it uses for such purposes; it
would be helpful not to have to look through dozens of RFCs to figure out
the content of such lists.

>       What coordination does it facilitate?  I really do not understand the
> point.

Not sure what you mean by "coordination".

> In the spec, it's useful to have the label 'trace' for education, to
> conceptually aggregate some fields.  But what is the /functional/ benefit of the
> label?

See above.

					Ned