[Top] [All Lists]

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

2012-01-10 12:34:27

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:15 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt

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.


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.

John suggested what's essentially a no-op state name to accommodate those 
implementations that, in supporting this, will always want to put some kind of 
state clause down, and that seems a decent idea to me.

"normal" would be fine with me too.


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