Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-2822upd (Internet Message Format) to Draft Standard

John C Klensin wrote:

 [comparison of 2822upd and 2822]
> Yes, but that has little or nothing to do with Brian's
> comment, at least as I understand it.

Sure, for readers not familiar with 2822upd I wanted to
have it on record that 2822upd did something wrt gateways
(one topic of your appeal cited by Brian).  2822upd also
did something wrt trace header fields.  

Admittedly 2822upd doesn't update RFC 3864, or talk about
X- header fields, which might be good or bad depending on
the X- header field.  For X-Mailer I think specifying it
is a waste of time, adopting User-Agent would be better.

Similar for almost all other X- header fields found by
Brian in your message.  The X-BeenThere might be special,
very near to the "above all, avoid loops" in son-of-1036.

 [several proposals] 
> I don't feel strongly about it as evidenced by the 
> observation that I probably wouldn't have bothered to
> say anything had Brian and others not brought it up.

Same here.  I argued that the X-Archived-At registration
is an odd way to terminate this experiment in favour of
Archived-At, but field names are no scarce resource, no
harm done.  I'm still not sure if what Brian wants should
be addressed in 2822upd or in a future 3864bis, though.

 Frank

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf