Re: I-D ACTION:draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01.txt

Bruce Lilly wrote:
> On Wed May 25 2005 18:32, [email protected] wrote:
> 
>>In any case, I agree that these are not
>>header fields and hence do not belong in the regular header field
>>registry.
> 
> 
> Discussion with Graham back when the registry documents were still
> in draft form seemed to indicate that it would be reasonable. The
> use could be indicated via the registration form "applicable protocol"
> field.  The benefits would be as listed in RFC 3864:
>
...

In this specific case, additional registered fields need to specify the 
type of feedback they are used for. By using BCP 90, there isn't 
sufficient space to do that. Same goes for the DSN/MDN/MTSN fields which 
need more than simple registration.

> 
> With three related types already (DSN, MDN, MTSN), and some already
> existing common use (e.g. Original-Recipient, Final-Recipient), the
> benefits enumerated in 3864 seem clear.
> 
...

Any particular reason why these fields were not included in the initial 
header registry? Sounds rather strange to me.

Yakov