RE: [Asrg] CRI Header

Now that the issue on the RFC 2822 headers is settled, I would like to 
bring up the issue of MIME and SMTP for CRI. Like I pointed out before, in 
my opinion the CRI protocol should utilize both RFC 2822 and MIME headers, 
with optional SMTP negotiation. In certain instances, like Vernon stated, 
MIME headers would have to be used when large amounts of data (larger than 
the 998 character limit of RFC 2822 headers) need to be transferred. 
Examples would be C/R systems transferring digital certificate chains and 
replying with a single challenge/response message for multiple recipients. 
Additionally, SMTP CRI via some ESMTP extension would be useful in certain 
cases.
Another very important point, is the need to define the CRI protocol as 
extensible. We need to provide space for implementors to add their own 
features such as hash cash, digital signatures, etc.
Yakov


At 10:47 AM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote:

> I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with proposing a new
> RFC2822 header.  If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of it, then so be it.
> I'll proceed br producing a draft with real 2822-type headers.
>
> However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate in the
> meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed 2822 headers
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric(_at_)infobro(_dot_)com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:11 PM
> > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Eric Dean'; asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 AM, Yakov Shafranovich
> > [SMTP:research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com] wrote:
> > > At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean
> > [SMTP:eric(_at_)purespeed(_dot_)com]
> > > >wrote:
> > > >8<...>8
> > > > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one?  There
> > isn't an RFC
> > > > > 2822
> > > > > registration process that I am aware of.
> > > >
> > > >IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the
> > introduction
> > > >of an
> > > >new one?  Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as effective?'
> > > >[..]
> > >
> > > Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until the standard
> > > gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard
> > is approved
> > > then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is similar to the
> > > HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to indicate gzip
> > > encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5).
> >
> > I understand that, thanks.  But the issue I was trying to
> > interpose is that
> > perhaps the consideration of which would be more effective for
> > the proposal is
> > the type of question that should be asked at this state.
> >
> > -e
> >
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg