Re: delivered-to format (was: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-email-deliveredto-05.txt)

On 8/9/2021 2:28 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 01:52:36PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>>   From the Introduction, what about this is insufficiently clear or complete?
> 
> All of it.

Really, you didn't understand a single word of those two paragraph?

Perhaps you can offer some text that you'd find more helpful?


 >  What is the new experimental use of the header?

We've gone over that.  I gave a lengthy response.  It's fine that you 
don't agree with it, but it's not helpful to keep repeating your 
unhappiness with it.



>>> It can be helpful for a message to have a common way of indicating
>>> each delivery in the handling sequence, and to include each address
>>> that led to the final delivery.
> 
> Useful to whom and to what end?

To anyone who wants the information.  Again:

    -  what specifics are you looking for?

    -  what additional or different detail do you think is needed?



>>> This can aid in the analysis of a message's transit handling.
> 
> OK: 1. Human reading tea leaves.

I don't understand what that means for this document.


>>> An additional use can be for detecting a delivery sequence loop.
> 
> OK: 2. Existing loop detection use-case.
> 
> So the only proposed uses are the current ones, which is reassuring, but
> also rather invites the question of what exactly is then the the nature
> of the proposed "experiment"?

asked and answered, as the lawyers like to say.

> 
> Instead of promposing an "experiment" why not just clarify the existing
> uses above, and making it clear that the header is a trace header, and
> that its payload SHOULD be an "addr-spec" from RFC5322.  The draft can
> then be informational.

Let's focus on the substance of the document and worry about process and 
labels later (or never).

d/



-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net