Eric Allman | 11 Jul 18:55 2000

MSGTRK pre-drafts

Enclosed are two "pre-drafts" -- they really aren't up for draft status yet,
but I did want folks here get a glimpse of where they are going.

eric


Internet Draft                                               E. Allman

draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-00.txt                        Sendmail, Inc.

Valid for six months                                    July XXX, 2000

                        SMTP Service Extension

                         for Message Tracking

                  <draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-00.txt>

Status of This Memo

     This  document  is  an  Internet-Draft and is in full conformance

with all provisions of Section 10  of  RFC2026.   Internet-Drafts  are

working  documents  of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its

areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may  also  dis-

(Continue reading)

Gregory Neil Shapiro | 13 Jul 17:49 2000

Re: MSGTRK pre-drafts

eric> Enclosed are two "pre-drafts" -- they really aren't up for draft
eric> status yet, but I did want folks here get a glimpse of where they are
eric> going.

I noticed the documents still use an SMTP verb instead of an external
protocol for querying tracking information.  After the last IETF meeting, I
thought we were looking towards breaking the query out into it's own
service/protocol.

Eric Allman | 14 Jul 08:51 2000
Picon

Re: MSGTRK pre-drafts

Erk.  I think you're right.  This never disappeared from my very early
outline, hence my confusion.  Just ignore that portion of the document.

eric

============= In Reply To: ===========================================
: From:  Gregory Neil Shapiro <gshapiro <at> Sendmail.COM>
: Subject:  Re: MSGTRK pre-drafts
: Date:  Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:49:24 -0700 (PDT)

: eric> Enclosed are two "pre-drafts" -- they really aren't up for draft
: eric> status yet, but I did want folks here get a glimpse of where they are
: eric> going.
: 
: I noticed the documents still use an SMTP verb instead of an external
: protocol for querying tracking information.  After the last IETF meeting, I
: thought we were looking towards breaking the query out into it's own
: service/protocol.

Tony Hansen | 14 Jul 08:50 2000
Picon

two drafts submitted

I've just sent off two drafts to the I-D editors: 

	Message Tracking Model and Requirements
	draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-02.txt

	Message Tracking Query Protocol
	draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-00.txt

For those who can't wait, I've also uploaded them to

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Way/8115/draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-02.txt
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Way/8115/draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-00.txt

	Tony Hansen
	tony <at> att.com

Steve Hole | 14 Jul 18:46 2000

Re: two drafts submitted

On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:50:16 -0400 Tony Hansen <tony <at> att.com> wrote:

> 	Message Tracking Query Protocol
> 	draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-00.txt
> 
> For those who can't wait, I've also uploaded them to
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Way/8115/draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-02.txt
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Way/8115/draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-00.txt

Please, everyone, read these documents prior to Pittsburg.    We will be 
discussing them in detail and, hopefully, coming to concensus on most of 
the details of the protocol.    I will be asking Tony and Eric to do short
presentations on the proposals, but I would like to have people do some 
thinking about this before we get into the meeting.    We will also be 
doing another design team meeting prior to the working group meeting to 
make sure that we have solid proposals in hand for discussion.

Cheers.
---
Steve Hole
Messaging Direct
Mailto:Steve.Hole <at> MessagingDirect.com
Phone: 780-424-4922

Steve Hole | 14 Jul 18:43 2000

Re: two drafts submitted

On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:50:16 -0400 Tony Hansen <tony <at> att.com> wrote:

> I've just sent off two drafts to the I-D editors: 
> 
> 	Message Tracking Model and Requirements
> 	draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-02.txt

It is my intention to have this document go to last call.     I would like
to deal with any issues with the document in Pittsburg and make a formal 
last call immediately after.

Recall that this document will be issued as informational.    It is a 
working document for the group to focus the conversation on the problem 
that we wanted to solve -- not on any solutions.   The oither documents 
produced by Tony and Eric are solution documents and the place that we 
want to spend our time on debate.

Cheers.

---
Steve Hole
Messaging Direct
Mailto:Steve.Hole <at> MessagingDirect.com
Phone: 780-424-4922

Keith Moore | 14 Jul 20:05 2000
Picon

Re: MSGTRK pre-drafts

I'd be curious as to the justification for creating a separate 
protocol for message tracking.  to me it doesn't make any sense.

Keith

Internet-Drafts | 18 Jul 12:35 2000
Picon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-02.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Message Tracking Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Message Tracking Model and Requirements
	Author(s)	: T. Hansen, K. Lin
	Filename	: draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-02.txt
	Pages		: 10
	Date		: 17-Jul-00
	
Customers buying enterprise message systems often ask: Can I track
the messages?  Message tracking is the ability to find out the path that
a particular message has taken through a messaging system and the
current routing status of that message.  This document provides a model
of message tracking that can be used for understanding the Internet-wide
message infrastructure and to further enhance those capabilities to
include message tracking, as well as requirements for proposed message
tracking solutions.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-02.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-02.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

(Continue reading)

Internet-Drafts | 21 Jul 15:40 2000
Picon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Message Tracking Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Message Tracking Query Protocol
	Author(s)	: T. Hansen
	Filename	: draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-00.txt
	Pages		: 9
	Date		: 20-Jul-00
	
Customers buying enterprise message systems often ask: Can I track
the messages?  Message tracking is the ability to find out the path that
a particular message has taken through a messaging system and the
current routing status of that message.  This document describes the
Message Tracking Query Protocol that is used in conjunction with exten-
sions to the ESMTP protocol to provide a complete message tracking solu-
tion for the Internet.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
(Continue reading)

Lyndon Nerenberg | 26 Jul 22:08 2000

linting draft-ietf-msgtrk-protocol-00.txt

Here are a few things that popped out during my initial read of the 
draft.

Section 3:

* line 2: s/message may issue the EHLO command/message MUST issue the 
EHLO command/

Section 4.2.1

s/the Tracking ID is REQUIRED to be/the Tracking ID MUST be/

  "generational counter MUST be incremented by one."

contradicts the followon sentence. Suggest: "generational counter MUST
be incremented." and drop the following sentence (... small amount ...)
(or provide a rational for it?).

Section 4.2.2

  s/This secret value MAY be a per-message secret/This secret value 
SHOULD
  be a per-message secret/

Is there a reason for MAY here instead of SHOULD?

Section 4.2.4

  "This value is then expressed as a series of
  32 hexadecimal digits, either lower- or upper-case, transmitted in
(Continue reading)


Gmane