Subject: [Simple] Re: IMDN-02 WGLC comments

From: "Hisham Khartabil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:45:00 +1100

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your comments. Some replies inline...

On 24/12/06, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> We use the term "address" a lot when we really mean "URI". They are
> not interchangeable terms.

Can you clarify the difference?

> Section 7.1.3:
>
> I mentioned this on the previous draft, but I missed any discussion
> or change due to that comment, so I will make it again. I don't see
> the value of allowing the sender to request aggregation, considering
> that the list server has no obligation to pay any attention. Since
> aggregation policy has a major affect on URI list server performance
> and scalability, I doubt _anyone_ will configure such a server to pay
> attention to sender preferences for aggregation. IMHO, the ability
> for the sender to request whether aggregation will be used or not
> adds no value to justify the complexity.

Yes, you are right. I will remove that complexity.

> 7.2.1: Second paragraph: put quotes around "processing".
>
> Paragraph 4: What is the motivation for requiring the Message-ID CPIM
> header field in an IMDN, since you can't send an IMDN to an IMDN?

That was a topic of the that IETF meeting. We agreed to make it that
way since Eric pointed out that there might be future use for it. No
one objected.

>
> Section 10: Do we reference the constructions for URI and "token"
> somewhere? Also, shouldn't we use a more general construction for
> [ Formal-name ] "<" URI ">"?  (such as addrspec?)

That's ok. This is a copy of the To header field definition in CPIM.

>
> Section 11.1.5 : If there was any normative language requiring the IM
> recipient to do something with <subject>, I missed it.

There are none.

> 12.2:

>
> Paragraph 6: Why "MAY"? are we allowing an intermediary to consume
> "processing" notices from downstream without forwarding them back
> upstream?

No, its saying that the intermeidary may *generate*.

Thanks,
Hisham

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:29:52 -0600

> Can you clarify the difference?

A URI is an identifier at a higher level than an address, assuming  
most people associate the term "address" with IP address. A URI can  
contain a user part, for example, that identifies an account, user,  
inbox, etc at a domain. That is, it can map to more than just an  
address.

> way since Eric pointed out that there might be future use for it. No

Okay. Sorry, I must have had too much beer ;-)

> That's ok. This is a copy of the To header field definition in CPIM.

I'm not sure which of the two parts of my comment you refer to with  
"That's okay". If the second part, if that is how CPIM defines it and  
we are just copying from CPIM, then I am okay with it. If the first  
part (URI and "token"), then these terms have no normative meaning  
unless they are either referenced or defined, right?

>> recipient to do something with <subject>, I missed it.

Then under what circumstances will the recipient copy a subject into  
<subject>?

> No, its saying that the intermeidary may *generate*.

I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time--I assume it is okay if  
multiple intermediaries send a "processing" IMDN to the same message,  
right?

---

From: Eric McMurry <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:51:12 -0600

On Feb 5, 2007, at 9:29 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time--I assume it is okay  
> if multiple intermediaries send a "processing" IMDN to the same  
> message, right?
>

It seems reasonable for this to happen.  Consider the case of an  
exploder followed by a store and forward server.  A "processing" IMDN  
could be sent by the exploder followed by one or more "stored" IMDNs.