Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01
"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Mon, 03 October 2011 12:52 UTC
Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F23321F8497; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 05:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 SN2fi5qJK8Ul; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 05:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2539821F848D; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 05:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyh21 with SMTP id 21so3586165wyh.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 05:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:content-language:thread-index; bh=ysoSkfvxF6DJbcBOKrXV0dcZRGkrSUH8Mht/IjcHuSc=; b=hBNElHsWtTKMO6vbh43ypz+CnvhJuSYa3hQKbUefeFtHRMow6n7MR5lrfoMikdBTa2 KME67t9PnLw/8zU1dm03s0qCm5PVAzbepszM/xzue65YQ++fj+0LkqSkg9D3IS7FyXi9 Q0OOdyqbhoNl77yxZ4w3cF4QuH9ELBIszJ0Z0=
Received: by 10.223.57.17 with SMTP id a17mr9184333fah.65.1317646392873; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 05:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windows8d787f9 (bzq-109-64-200-234.red.bezeqint.net. [109.64.200.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y8sm21177077faj.10.2011.10.03.05.53.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Oct 2011 05:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <msk@cloudmark.com>, draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <4e87169c.8e2bdf0a.01d9.20f0@mx.google.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C45D9DD7@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4e894dcb.8425df0a.1692.ffffe960@mx.google.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C45D9DE3@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C45D9DE3@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:50:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4e89b037.884bdf0a.1167.fffff2c3@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02A6_01CC81DB.D73EA690"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-language: en-us
Thread-index: AcyAPlbBDH5dlWMQStOjcRPEol3dZwBTq87QAACjsuAAATdPAAANmBfA
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, 'IETF-Discussion list' <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:52:25 -0000
Thanks, for the information. I will leave it up to you to decide if the information you provided me here should be in the document as backward interoperability information. Regards Roni From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:msk@cloudmark.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 8:25 AM To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list' Subject: RE: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01 The main implementations of multipart/report that I know of so far are ARF (RFC5965), DSN (RFC3464) and MDN (RFC3798). In the latter two cases, they repeat the requirement that, at time of generation, a DSN/MDN has to have multipart/report as the outermost MIME type, which is why it's safe to remove the restriction here. ARF specifically doesn't want the restriction, which was the impetus for this change; ARF wants to be able to send a message that is multipart/mixed containing many multipart/reports. According to discussion within the working group, experience suggests most implementations of RFC3462 have disregarded the restriction anyway, specifically to allow DSNs and MDNs to be forwarded around (inside message/* MIME parts). There has not been any report of interoperability problems as a result. This factored into the working group's consensus. -MSK From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 10:51 PM To: Murray S. Kucherawy; draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list' Subject: RE: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01 Hi, My mistake about the document type (cut and paste problem) As for me comment about multipart/report as part of another multipart MIME message, what will happen when an implementation based on RFC3462 will receive the report according this document. Will it be processed, ignored or take other behavior. Can the sender of the report know if it can send the report in another multipart MIME message. Thanks Roni Even From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:msk@cloudmark.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:29 AM To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list' Subject: RE: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01 Hi Roni, thanks for your comments. Two things in reply: First, this is not an Informational document, it's Standards Track. I don't know if that changes anything in your review, however. Second, Section 1 does describe the change being made between RFC3462 and this document, and the rationale for doing so. Was there some detail missing from there that was in the Appendix that you feel should be added? Thanks, -MSK From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 6:31 AM To: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list' Subject: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date: 2011-10-1 IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-10 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. Major issues: Minor issues: I noticed that the major change from RFC 3462 in the current version is to remove requirement that multipart/report not be contained in anything. The changes appear in appendix B which is to be removed in the published document. I think that it will be better to have the change from RFC 3462 be part of the main text and also discuss what are the backward interoperability issues if any. Nits/editorial comments:
- [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-apps… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-apps… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-apps… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-apps… Roni Even