[Top] [All Lists]

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

2005-05-26 09:08:11

On Wed May 25 2005 22:33, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:

In this specific case, additional registered fields need to specify the 
type of feedback they are used for.

That's a design issue which should probably be revisited, particularly
in light of review comments regarding "other" and "any".

By using BCP 90, there isn't  
sufficient space to do that. Same goes for the DSN/MDN/MTSN fields which 
need more than simple registration.

For DSN, MDN, MTSN fields, the BCP 90 registration "applicable protocol"
field could specify "DSN", "MDN", or "MTSN" as appropriate.
Any particular reason why these fields were not included in the initial 
header registry? Sounds rather strange to me.

Probably nobody got around to it yet; some message header fields aren't
yet registered and HTTP fields haven't yet been registered.