Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Fri, 27 January 2012 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.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 8F66621F85BD for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:09:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6]
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 wBYkYz17jmYt for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:09:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2beaomr08.btconnect.com [213.123.26.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD4521F85C5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:09:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host86-163-138-100.range86-163.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.163.138.100]) by c2beaomr08.btconnect.com with SMTP id FZA05293; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:08:55 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <00ea01ccdd0e$08d59f00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>, <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <4EE2430E.4080501@isode.com> <4F1F1A72.1090302@isode.com><FAD2FBBB-E679-4867-81E6-3F1C472BCF04@vpnc.org><010501ccdb43$16dd5ec0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7D99E@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:08:48 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4F22DA27.0002, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.1.27.161222:17:7.586, ip=86.163.138.100, rules=__HAS_MSGID, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1, __SANE_MSGID, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, CT_TP_8859_1, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_PATH, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr08.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0205.4F22DA27.00C6, ss=1, re=0.000, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.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 17:09:05 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:43 PM
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of t.petch
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:24 AM
> > To: Paul Hoffman; Alexey Melnikov
> > Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt
> >
> > And, to be expected really, this I-D fails to consider migration; what
> > is going to happen now to those 15 X- headers and all the others that
> > are in other e-mails?  Where is your migration plan?
>
> I think it's there in plain sight: Drop the "X-" and register them.
>
> I think it's also clear that this can't affect deployed software that actually
looks for "X-" fields, but rather encourages new implementations of things to
avoid this practice.  Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>
> If the document doesn't already say something like that, I agree that it would
be a useful thing to say.

I do not see it in the I-D, about what, if anything, this I-D expects to change
with the parameters currently in use.  The sort of parameters I have in mind are
those that appear in the header of the e-mail you originated, such as

X-BigFish:
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report:
X-Original-To:
X-Virus-Scanned:
X-SpamScore:
X-Spam-Flag:
X-Spam-Score:
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status:
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-BeenThere:
X-Mailman-Version:
X-FOPE-CRA-Verdict:

As far as I know, none of them make any difference to what I experience as a
mail user and I would be just as happy if a passing MTA stripped them all out -
which with X- it might consider doing, whereas without, it could not take the
risk.  In fact, I would love to see them stripped out, reducing the amount of
data I download and store:-)

Tom Petch

> > And what about all the other private portions of namespaces that are
> > designated with something other than X-?  Will you produce an edict
> > prohibiting them as well?
>
> The abstract says that this "causes more problems than it solves."  Do you
envision some other solution to those problems?
>
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>