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

On Wed May 25 2005 22:33, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:

> In this specific case, additional registered fields need to specify the 
> type of feedback they are used for.

That's a design issue which should probably be revisited, particularly
in light of review comments regarding "other" and "any".

> 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.

For DSN, MDN, MTSN fields, the BCP 90 registration "applicable protocol"
field could specify "DSN", "MDN", or "MTSN" as appropriate.
 
> Any particular reason why these fields were not included in the initial 
> header registry? Sounds rather strange to me.

Probably nobody got around to it yet; some message header fields aren't
yet registered and HTTP fields haven't yet been registered.