From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:15 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt
This suggests a confusion about the clause. Does it provide a label to
explain the specific Received field or does it label the message? I
think that having it used as a label for the message is just plain
wrong. Put those somewhere else.
OK. Putting this simplistically, we already have lots of Received:
fields being generated and we should have a clause value that covers
this probably-uninteresting set? I suggest "normal" or somesuch, not
"none". The message, /is/ after all, making a transition. Whatever
state or queue it just entered, it does exist.
John suggested what's essentially a no-op state name to accommodate those
implementations that, in supporting this, will always want to put some kind of
state clause down, and that seems a decent idea to me.
"normal" would be fine with me too.