Re: [ietf-smtp] Delivered-to and Return-path

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 2/19/2021 8:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Friday, February 19, 2021 19:36 -0800 Dave Crocker
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/17/2021 9:55 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> If I correctly understand the intended use of Delivered-to and
>>> the meaning of "added at the time of delivery", I believe that
>>> the examples in Section 4 are in error.   The example does not
>>> show a Return-path and I'm having trouble figuring out a case
>>> in
> 
>> You appear to be adding a requirement for the example to be
>> exhaustively complete.
> 
> No.  I am just suggesting that, given the obvious relationship
> between one as a forward pointer and the other as a backward
> pointer, both assigned at or after the time SMTP hands the


Noting an abstract connection does not mean there is a practical one.

The current draft provides information that is necessary and sufficient 
for understanding and using the field.

If you think otherwise, please explain carefully, since I think there is 
no other indication of technical problems with the draft.

The example provides sufficient tutorial context to make the 
understanding and use concrete and accurate, as far as I can tell. And I 
believe that no one else is expressing a concern, so far.

As for possible interactions with other fields, again, the instructions 
in the specific are quite simple and pointed.  And sufficient.

Introducing commentary about secondary issues invites readers to be 
confused or to debate matters.  Absent normative import -- and 
especially absent demonstrated implementation or operational issues -- 
adding such material mostly has downsides.  At best, it's simply 
extraneous and ignored.

To the extent that discussion about broader issues with header field 
creation or use is needed, such material is suited to a broader, 
systems-oriented document.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net