Re: [Ietf-message-headers] [usefor] [apps-discuss] Changes to netnews header registrations

Julien ÉLIE <> Sun, 22 May 2016 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91BFA12B01A for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 06:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zzAYPXhCIUNW for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 06:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8026612B02A for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 06:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home ([]) by mwinf5d16 with ME id xRyC1s00517Lgi403RyCSe; Sun, 22 May 2016 15:58:16 +0200
X-ME-Helo: macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home
X-ME-Auth: anVsaWVuLmVsaWVAd2FuYWRvby5mcg==
X-ME-Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 15:58:16 +0200
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_=c3=89LIE?= <>
Organization: TrigoFACILE --
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 15:58:12 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Resent-From: <>
Cc: Graham Klyne <>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] [usefor] [apps-discuss] Changes to netnews header registrations
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 13:58:22 -0000

Hi Graham,

>> OK, Content-* header fields used by netnews are not supposed to be
>> registered. Yet, is it the same for MIME-Version, that is not
>> mentioned in neither Section 1 nor Section 2.2.2 of RFC3864?
> I believe so:  "MIME-Version" is registered as a "MIME" header field in
> the registry.

OK, I was a bit confused by the existence of "http" and "mail" protocols 
related to Content-* headers or MIME-Version in the registry.

Incidentally, RFC4021 marks Content-Identifier and Content-Return 
obsolete for the mail protocol (see Sections 2.1.42 and 2.1.47 of 
RFC4021).  Shouldn't the registry reflect that status?

Same thing for Encrypted, Obsoletes and Expiry-Date headers fields, 
marked as obsolete.  Maybe a pass on IANA Considerations of RFC4021 
should be done to make sure everything is correctly marked in the registry?

>> maybe X-Trace (and maybe other headers) could be added in IANA
>> considerations section of an update of RFC 5536 if we ever move it
>> to Draft Standard?
> Sure.  That would be subject to normal IETF review.  If it passed that,
> then (as registry reviewer) I would have no problem recommending its
> acceptance.

I'm fine with that.  Thanks, Graham.
(If other people in the USEFOR mailing-list have another opinion, do not 
hesitate to tell.)

Julien ÉLIE

« – Ce n'était pas ma question.
   – C'était p'têt pas vot'question, oui, mais c'est ma
     réponse ! » (Georges Marchais répondant à Alain Duhamel)