Re: Proposal for the interactive message tracking protocol

"Ward, Jon" wrote:
> 
> Have we thought about the desired use and potential use of this?  Depending
> upon the results desired, we may need to approach the design from different
> angles.
>
> A few possible features come to mind.  We may want to realize a
> standardized Receipt Notification that will allow users to send a
> message and request the receipt notification.  We may want to have
> the Read Notification.  Other things like this would happen almost
> entirely at the Application layer. This could be done without
> modifying the function of SMTP.  If we want, for example, to be
> able to troubleshoot an undelivered message by requesting
> information from each SMTP relay along the path, we may need to
> implement some sort of tracking log on each relay so that it can
> provide this information upon request.  In any case, there must be
> some way to uniquely identify each message.  This identifier may
> need to be the same across different boundaries of management
> responsibility.
>
> I am very much in favor of the message tracking concept.
> 
> Do we have a scope of requirements or even a wish-list?  Would we be the
> ones to brainstorm about this list?

Jon,

Be sure and re-read the model document: draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-00.txt.
Also re-read the following documents referenced by the model document:

     [RFC-DSN] Moore, K., and G. Vaudreuil, "An	Extensible Message  For-
	       mat for Delivery	Status Notifications", RFC 1894, Univer-
	       sity of Tennessee, Octel	Network	Services, January 1996.

     [RFC-ESMTP-DSN]
	       Moore, K., "SMTP	Service	Extension  for	Delivery  Status
	       Notifications",	RFC 1891, University of	Tennessee, Janu-
	       ary 1996.

     [RFC-MDN] Fajman, R., "An Extensible  Message  Format  for	 Message
	       Disposition Notifications", RFC 2298, National Institutes
	       of Health, March	1998.

Many of your questions and comments are covered by the above references.

	Tony Hansen
	[email protected]