Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu)
Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:38:59 -0400
immediate comments on the criticality flag:
1. I'd far rather see this as a content-disposition parameter, but
this might be just a matter of taste.
2. for DSNs, the interactions between notify/partial/ignore and the
NOTIFY= SMTP parameter might need to be spelled out, preferably
in a table. the current prose about this seems muddy.
3. "notify" and "partial" seem likely to invite confusion between
SMTP NOTIFY and the "partial" message delivery status.
something like "critical", "semi-critical", "not-critical"
might work better...but these are not quite right either.
(what did X.400 use? I don't have it handy right now...)
4. when to issue a DSN vs. when to deliver an MDN needs to be
clarified - you send a DSN if the problem is detected at
delivery time, you send an MDN if the problem is detected
when the message is read.
5. there need to be DSN and MDN extensions to indicate which parts
could not be converted/presented. this would presumably include
new DSN status codes and new per-recipient, per-body-part, DSN
fields to indicate the failure type and error message.
(*please* don't invent new report types for these!)
Keith
p.s. both of these proposals really need to be reviewed by MIME folks -
the mailing list is the mailing list is ietf-822@imc.org.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Jun 07 2000 - 02:39:09 IDT