Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header [correction]

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:02:58 -0400

On second though, after perusing the application subtree at IANA 
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/) there are plenty 
of MIME types that are based on Internet drafts and informational RFCs. 
Perhaps the bureaucracy would not be that much of a problem.

At 09:12 AM 6/3/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:

> > From: "Eric Dean" <[email-masked]>
>
> > Trying to come up with the right place to shim in the CRI control headers.
> > It seems we can do the following:
> >
> > 1) Use SMTP headers: beyond the deployment issues, CRI is not limited 
> to the
> > envelope and there are often many mail relays in the path that could remove
> > such headers.  We do not want to restrict mail clients from implementing
> > CRI.
> >
> > 2) Use RFC 2822 headers: we could possibly introduce a new field altogether
> > or use an optional field as spec'd in 3.6.8
> >
> > 3) Use MIME headers (registered or private): though CRI has little 
> relavancy
> > with MIME.  Private headers can not become a standard.  There isn't such a
> > limitation on 2822 3.6.8
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>If the goal is to get a CRI protocol defined and deployed to stop some
>spam, why do you care about the fact that private headers (presumably
>X-whatever) cannot become a standard?

Inter-operability is a key, if X- headers are used (or MIME "x." type) then 
nothing stops someone from making their own ones. The whole point of such 
protocol is that it would be a standard that cannot be changes at the whims 
of some vendor.

>I thought you guys were clever to use MIME for more than one reason.
>Pushing a new official RFC 2822 header (other than an ad hoc X-whatever)
>through the IETF would take a year or more and you might fail.  That
>you are sure challenge/response systems will be effective against spam
>will be a weak response to Last Call criticisms.  However, I've the
>impression that MIME headers don't have that bureuacratic problem to
>the same degree.  That should be checked.

According to section 2.1.1 of RFC 2048, there is plenty of bureaucratic 
problems involved. I am assuming that we would want to register this MIME 
type under the IETF tree, if so the following from RFC 2048 applies:

"The IETF tree is intended for types of general interest to the Internet 
Community. Registration in the IETF tree requires approval by the IESG and 
publication of the media type registration as some form of RFC."

The MIME type would have to go through the standards process anyway. 
Additionally, all MIME types of type "message" which I am assuming will be 
used for CRI, have been registered based on RFCs (take a look at 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/message/).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakov Shafranovich / <[email-masked]>
SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on
the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

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