[Top] [All Lists]

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

2012-01-10 12:28:48

On 1/10/2012 10:02 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Those aren't queueing states though; they're metadata about the message.

I think I don't understand what this means.

The example given was "spam", which strikes me as a label attached to a
message somehow (perhaps as metadata) and not a phase of message handling
enroute to its destination.

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.

Use of the clause requires a new Received header field.  The condition the
'none' value seems intended for is for typical header fields as are
generated today.  Either these should get meaningful labels or the existing
label 'other' should suffice.

I think "other" implies the message is entering some kind of queue state that
will introduce an atypical delay, where "none" is an explicit statement that
this is not the case.  They are semantically different.

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.



  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>