Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 15 January 2012 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 6C10521F84A2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:48:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 z+1eMx7EiD7V for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:48:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C0621F848B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:48:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-124-148-117.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.148.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0F0mcgV027703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:48:43 -0800
Message-ID: <4F122257.10301@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:48:23 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15818@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15859@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmar k.com> <AD693E95D4252DC3E8F3832F@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <AD693E95D4252DC3E8F3832F@PST.JCK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:48:44 -0800 (PST)
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Adoption of draft-kucherawy-received-state?
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 00:48:45 -0000

On 1/13/2012 10:53 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> SMTP rather carefully defines "trace information" or "trace
> headers" and then limits that category to two types of

What is the import of this observation, relative to the current proposal?

You appear to be intending it as a constraint, but I don't understand how, 
specifically.


> In any event, we have discovered repeatedly (and sometimes
> painfully) that the the Received header field is not well
> designed for extensibility.

I don't recall seeing these claims before or documentation that they are valid. 
  Can you provide some citations?

Note that the definition of the Received: header field provides a registry for 
addition of new clauses, so you appear to be saying that extensibility is not 
viable.


>        It depends on an ordered,
> context-dependent, reserved keyword model (something I don't

If you are saying that the specific placement of the clause is essential, then 
please document this requirement -- beyond what is in the RFC5321 spec and the 
proposed clause spec -- both in terms of what you believe is acceptable and 
different from the current specification and also the basis for this.


>       we should have a serious discussion about how far
> we want to go in extending "Received:" and when it is time to
> add one or more additional Trace header fields, possibly with a
> typology of functions that each serves (beyond "inserted by a
> transit MTA or something else") and

Please review the latest version, specifically the 'Discussion' section, which 
provides exactly the consideration you are calling for.


 >      with a syntax that is
> clearly name-value based, rather than even partially dependent
> on parser recognition of specific keywords.

I don't understand the requirement you are proposing, since the "name" of a 
name/value pair is a specific keyword.  Hence, your saying "rather than" appears 
to be contradictory.

You seem to be meaning something else, but I can't guess what.


> Let's not turn "Received:" further into a kludge just because it
> is there.

How is it already a kludge?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net