Re: Experimental (was: Re: homework, not an experiment, draft-crocker-email-deliveredto)

On 8/5/2021 10:46 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Well, perhaps then a*new*  experimental header should be defined for this
> new purpose.  Though who exactly is the audience for this trace information?

That would serve to exclude existing practice.  In effect, it raises the 
barrier to adoption, since it moves from 'incremental benefit' to 
'starting over'.

So far, there has been no objective evidence produced that would prevent 
the use of the existing header field for both loop detection and 
delivery sequence auditing.



> Beyond loop detection, what is the intended audience of the draft's trace
> headers?

 From the Abstract:
>> It can be helpful for a message to
>>    have a common way to record each delivery in such a sequence, and to
>>    include each address used for that recipient.

This was, after all, the reason for starting the documentation effort.

d.

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net