[Top] [All Lists]

RE: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt

2011-11-20 00:26:24

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org 
[mailto:owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Bill 
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 11:50 AM
To: SMTP Discussion
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt

Since the motivation for the "state" sub-field is to help figure out
why gaps in the Received: date-time stamp sequence occured, I think
that knowing for sure whether the named "state" is responsible for the
gap BEFORE the current Received: date-time stamp or AFTER that date-
time stamp is crucial.

I'm guessing my earlier suggestion was inadequate.  So how's this:

3.  New Trace Clause

   This memo creates a new trace field clause, called "state", which can
   be used to indicate the nature of a delay imposed on relaying of a
   message toward its recipient(s).  It is followed by a single keyword
   that provides that detail.  An MTA or other handling agent that
   determines a message is about to enter a state other than normal
   queueing of messages for delivery SHOULD generate a trace field
   including one of these clauses.  That is, the presence of this clause
   on a trace field is an indication of the entry of the message into
   that state; a later trace field added would indicate its departure
   from that state.

...and the rest unchanged.