Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace-header-registry-01.txt
John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Fri, 27 January 2012 15:10 UTC
Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 C07DD21F85EE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:10:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.322, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 fQI2hE2pMa4G for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A2121F85ED for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 5974833C28; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:10:27 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:10:27 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Message-ID: <20120127151027.GA86451@verdi>
References: <20120122220229.87477.qmail@joyce.lan> <20120123131953.GA36092@verdi> <6.2.5.6.2.20120123061715.09faec70@resistor.net> <20120123202634.GC36092@verdi> <6.2.5.6.2.20120123123554.0a88aca8@elandnews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120123123554.0a88aca8@elandnews.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
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: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:10:49 -0000
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote: > > Suggested text for Section 3.2: > > This informative section is to delineate the history of thinking about > Trace fields in mail-related specifications. > > [RFC4408] defines the "Received-SPF:" header field as a Trace field > and specifies that it is added above all other "Received-SPF:" > header fields. > > [RFC6376] specifies that the "DKIM-Signature:" header field is > treated as a Trace field and that it is not be reordered. It > mentions that the header field is prepended to the message. > DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) relies on maintaining the ordering > of header fields as a change of any "DKIM signed" header field can > invalidate the DKIM signature. > > [RFC5451] defines an "Authentication-Results:" header field. It > mentions that the field is to be treated as a Trace field to get an > idea of how far away authentication checks, such as DKIM and Sender > Policy Framework [RFC4408] were done. > > [RFC5518] defines a "VBR-Info:" header field and mentions that a > message can contain multiple occurrences of these header fields. The > document relies on the terminology in [RFC5322] to say that the "VBR- > Info:" header field is a "trace header field". It also specifies > that the header fields is be added at the top of the header > fields. > > [RFC5436] defines an "Auto-Submitted:" header to be added to > notification messages generated by Sieve filtering rules. Section > 2.7.1 says "The "Auto-Submitted:" header field is considered a Trace > field, similar to "Received:" header fields (see [RFC5321])." > > For Section 4: > > The recommendation that trace header fields is to be kept in > blocks is not always followed. Some implementations add any new > header field at the top of the message block without determining > whether it is a Trace field. Works for me. -- John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
- [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace-hea… John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace… John Leslie
- Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace… S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace… John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace… John Leslie
- Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace… S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace… John Leslie
- Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-levine-trace… Ned Freed