On 8/9/2021 2:28 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 01:52:36PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
From the Introduction, what about this is insufficiently clear or complete?
All of it.
Really, you didn't understand a single word of those two paragraph?
Perhaps you can offer some text that you'd find more helpful?
> What is the new experimental use of the header?
We've gone over that. I gave a lengthy response. It's fine that you
don't agree with it, but it's not helpful to keep repeating your
unhappiness with it.
It can be helpful for a message to have a common way of indicating
each delivery in the handling sequence, and to include each address
that led to the final delivery.
Useful to whom and to what end?
To anyone who wants the information. Again:
- what specifics are you looking for?
- what additional or different detail do you think is needed?
This can aid in the analysis of a message's transit handling.
OK: 1. Human reading tea leaves.
I don't understand what that means for this document.
An additional use can be for detecting a delivery sequence loop.
OK: 2. Existing loop detection use-case.
So the only proposed uses are the current ones, which is reassuring, but
also rather invites the question of what exactly is then the the nature
of the proposed "experiment"?
asked and answered, as the lawyers like to say.
Instead of promposing an "experiment" why not just clarify the existing
uses above, and making it clear that the header is a trace header, and
that its payload SHOULD be an "addr-spec" from RFC5322. The draft can
then be informational.
Let's focus on the substance of the document and worry about process and
labels later (or never).
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp