The main implementations of multipart/report that I know of so far are ARF
(RFC5965), DSN (RFC3464) and MDN (RFC3798). In the latter two cases, they
repeat the requirement that, at time of generation, a DSN/MDN has to have
multipart/report as the outermost MIME type, which is why it's safe to remove
the restriction here. ARF specifically doesn't want the restriction, which was
the impetus for this change; ARF wants to be able to send a message that is
multipart/mixed containing many multipart/reports.
According to discussion within the working group, experience suggests most
implementations of RFC3462 have disregarded the restriction anyway,
specifically to allow DSNs and MDNs to be forwarded around (inside message/*
MIME parts). There has not been any report of interoperability problems as a
result. This factored into the working group's consensus.
-MSK
From: Roni Even [mailto:ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 10:51 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy;
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: RE: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01
Hi,
My mistake about the document type (cut and paste problem)
As for me comment about multipart/report as part of another multipart MIME
message, what will happen when an implementation based on RFC3462 will receive
the report according this document. Will it be processed, ignored or take other
behavior. Can the sender of the report know if it can send the report in
another multipart MIME message.
Thanks
Roni Even
From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:29 AM
To: Roni Even;
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: RE: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01
Hi Roni, thanks for your comments.
Two things in reply:
First, this is not an Informational document, it's Standards Track. I don't
know if that changes anything in your review, however.
Second, Section 1 does describe the change being made between RFC3462 and this
document, and the rationale for doing so. Was there some detail missing from
there that was in the Appendix that you feel should be added?
Thanks,
-MSK
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Roni Even
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 6:31 AM
To: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-10-1
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-10
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
I noticed that the major change from RFC 3462 in the current version is to
remove requirement that multipart/report not be contained in anything. The
changes appear in appendix B which is to be removed in the published document.
I think that it will be better to have the change from RFC 3462 be part of the
main text and also discuss what are the backward interoperability issues if any.
Nits/editorial comments:
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf