Subject: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: assignments/message-headers/perm-headers [IANA #48608]

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:42:37 +0100

Update (posted on [email-masked]):

IESG + Graham + IANA are now in sync again, and Graham
is in fact the message header field registry reviewer :-)

The attempted "Errors-To" registration fell into the
gap where that was still unclear, and some details were
discussed in private mail, I try a summary:

A comment in RFC 1035 3.3.7 isn't good enough for the
registration as "permanent" header field, that would
need a proper specification in an RFC or a similar memo.

Therefore it has to be registered as "provisional", and
"provisionally dead" vs. "permanently dead" has the same
effect.

IANA could add a "deprecated" flag to the registry.  I'm
not sure how they'd do this, maybe they use the link to
the registration template (in the "reference" column of
the registry) with text "deprecated" or similar.

Amanda and Graham, please correct me if I got that wrong.
In essence I've to change five points in the template:

s/permanent/procisional/ and s/historic/deprecated/
Move 1035 3.3.7 and 2076 3.5 to "related information"
Insert "Use of this header field is considered harmful
and is strongly discouraged" as proposed by Graham.

In other words "rewrite the template from scratch" :-)
I try that below.  Pleae let me know if that's okay, or
if I should go into details about RFC 4406 oddities wrt
mailing lists.

Frank

PROVISIONAL MESSAGE HEADER FIELD REGISTRATION TEMPLATE:

Header field name:         Errors-To
Applicable protocol:       mail
Status:                    deprecated
Author/Change controller:  IETF
Specification document(s): -/-
Related information:
        Errors-To is mentioned in RFC 1035 3.3.7 and RFC 2076 3.5,
        it was never formally standardized.

        Errors-To is used by some mailing lists to reflect their
        envelope-sender address in the message header, typically
        the same as the Return-Path.

        Use of this header field is considered harmful and is
        strongly discouraged.  Especially it won't help for the
        "Sender ID" scheme specified in RFC 4406.

_______________________________________________
Ietf-message-headers mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers