Subject: [Emailcore] Another document about trace fields

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 21:57:29 -0800

As I'm getting caught up on this thread, I was reminded of RFC 6729 which
augmented trace fields to optionally include details about why there might
be a large time gap between two trace fields.  Its choice of language was
to refer to "Received" as typically "the" trace field.  I don't know if
that helps either way here.

Notably, that came after RFC 5451, the original version of RFC 8601, which
also marks Authentication-Results as a "trace field".

I can say that as I wrote both of those documents, my understanding of
"trace field" was that the placement of such fields is significant, and
thus their handling by MTAs was constrained.  I also didn't notice the
ambiguities in 5321/5322 back when I worked on either one.

I'm assuming when Alexey (I think it was him) says "fix this in emailcore",
his proposal is that we fix the ambiguities Dave identified in 5321/5322
regarding the term "trace field" to match the general use that has been
claimed in 5451 and its successors (there have been three), consistent also
with 6729 and any other RFC that made use of the term.  If my assumption is
correct, could Delivered-To reference 5321bis/5322bis normatively, and then
also use the term, which will render them all consistent on publication?

-MSK

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 07:05:54 -0800

On 2/16/2021 9:57 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> If my assumption is correct, could Delivered-To reference 
> 5321bis/5322bis normatively, and then also use the term, which will 
> render them all consistent on publication?

The Delivered-To draft I submitted does not contain the term, but added 
the ordering requirement directly.  This decouples the document from 
whatever timeline emailcore is on.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net