IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ietf-822] Re: Comment on experimental RFC9078

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 17 July 2024 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7ECC1840FC; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 07:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qxxn37aVTuuz; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 07:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9066C14F614; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 07:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1sU5sQ-000J7y-Bg; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:43:30 -0400
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:43:24 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Taavi Eomäe <taavi=40zone.ee@dmarc.ietf.org>, ietf-822@ietf.org
Message-ID: <FFE9221BD7F9E7D8D7373353@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <ccabdfd3-92eb-4e3c-9554-808bc91a8f2e@zone.ee>
References: <5cb8ef6f-2b29-4a98-aa87-caad69a8362d@karlewald.de> <ccabdfd3-92eb-4e3c-9554-808bc91a8f2e@zone.ee>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Message-ID-Hash: J3A3DZDPKMKDFVXBOJKYNQ7E743GZC42
X-Message-ID-Hash: J3A3DZDPKMKDFVXBOJKYNQ7E743GZC42
X-MailFrom: john-ietf@jck.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf-822.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [ietf-822] Re: Comment on experimental RFC9078
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format [RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/SCJ7GdHO1hmiSkT5-V-rct9LDmU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-822>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-822-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-822-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-822-leave@ietf.org>


--On Wednesday, July 17, 2024 16:04 +0300 Taavi Eomäe
<taavi=40zone.ee@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> On 17/07/2024 14:07, Karl Ewald wrote:
>> To address the first issue, I suggest a new header, e.g. (for now) 
>> X-Reaction-Permitted: true / false 
> 
> Headers where the intent is to standardize should probably not use
> the "X" prefix.

Agreed.  Indeed, the "X-" prefix has proven problematic even when
standardization is not expected - See RFC 6648. 

However, I hope we don't lose sight of Taavi's (at least IMO)
interesting and helpful analysis and suggestions because of that one
issue.  

   john

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status