[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01.txt

2005-05-25 20:30:57

On Wed, 25 May 2005, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:

With three related types already (DSN, MDN, MTSN), and some already
existing common use (e.g. Original-Recipient, Final-Recipient), the
benefits enumerated in 3864 seem clear.

Any particular reason why these fields were not included in the initial header registry? Sounds rather strange to me.

1. Because Bruce does not agree with how they are used today
   - which btw your use in feedback-report would not be consistant with
   because so far I've not seen them in the content (mime) and only as
   part of mail header that undergone some special processing
2. Because of you register these, you'd end up thiking about registing all
   the other Original- header fields which pretty much means registration
   of corresponding original header field for every already registered
   (and some not registered) header fields, kind of tiresome...
3. If you don't want to register several dozen fields one-by-one then
   it'd have to be proposal to modify header field registration system
   and create special new subtype of header registry for "Prefix-x"
   (which I'd still like to do but can't quite get to it).

William Leibzon
Elan Networks