The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-04

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two
actions that must be completed.

First, in the Multipart Media Types registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/multipart/index.html

the reference for multipart/report will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the Text Media Types registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/index.html

the reference for text/rfc822-headers will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be
completed upon approval of this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages) to Full Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
- 'The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System
  Administrative Messages'
  as an Internet Standard.

(Note: A Last call was previously made to consider this document for
Draft Standard. The IESG has asked, and the Working Group has
agreed, to process this document under the new RFC 6410 procedure
as an Internet Standard.)

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-11-23. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The multipart/report Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
  media type is a general "family" or "container" type for electronic
  mail reports of any kind.  Although this memo defines only the use of
  the multipart/report media type with respect to delivery status
  reports, mail processing programs will benefit if a single media type
  is used for all kinds of reports.

  This memo obsoletes RFC3462.  The IESG is also requested to mark
  RFC1892 and RFC3462 as "historic".




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis/

Implementation Report can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation/report-rfc1891-1894.txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

[Ballot comment]
#1) Do the authors also wish to make RFC 3462 and or 1892 Historic?

#2) I'll leave it to Pete/Barry if the additions as a result of discuss #2 require coordination with ietf-types@ietf.org

[Ballot discuss]
Updated based on -02.



#1) The authors are contacting the authors of 3462 - so I this is really just a placeholder discuss until the 3462 authors says yes/no and the boilerplate gets left alone/changed.

I'm hoping the answer to this is yes, but I had to ask because I didn't see it
in the proto write-up:

This document doesn't have a pre-5378 disclaimer and the author set is not the
same as RFC 3462.  Did Gregory grant the rights to the IETF Trust to
allow the document to be published without the pre-5378 disclaimer?

#2) addressed in -02

#3) cleared

[Ballot discuss]
I encourage advancing this under RFC6410.

That change to the process no longer _requires_ an implementation report, but since this was originally intended for publication as Draft standard, I assume one's been put together? I'm not finding it at  and it would be a shame to lose it if it's already done.

[Ballot discuss]
For discussion...

RFC 5337 section 4 updates RFC 3462. Has that change been reflected into this document? If so, shouldn't there be some note to that effect? If not, shouldn't there be a pointer to RFC 5337?

Or maybe no change is needed?

[Ballot discuss]


#1) I'm hoping the answer to this is yes, but I had to ask because I didn't see it
in the proto write-up:

This document doesn't have a pre-5378 disclaimer and the author set is not the
same as RFC 3462.  Did Gregory grant the rights to the IETF Trust to
allow the document to be published without the pre-5378 disclaimer?

#2) Do the registrations in s3 and s4 comply with RFC 4288?  I don't see the following fields from RFC 4288:

  Interoperability considerations:

  Published specification:

  Applications that use this media type:

  Additional information:

    Magic number(s):
    File extension(s):
    Macintosh file type code(s):

  Person & email address to contact for further information:

  Intended usage:

  Restrictions on usage:

  Author:

  Change controller:

#3) Were the registrations actually sent to ietf-types@ietf.org like the procedures from RFC 4288 require?

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages) to Draft Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
- 'The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System
  Administrative Messages'
  as a Draft Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-10. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The multipart/report Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
  media type is a general "family" or "container" type for electronic
  mail reports of any kind.  Although this memo defines only the use of
  the multipart/report media type with respect to delivery status
  reports, mail processing programs will benefit if a single media type
  is used for all kinds of reports.

  This memo obsoletes RFC3462.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis/

Implementation Report can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation.html

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01

The Applications Area Working Group requests the publication of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01 as a Draft Standard, replacing RFC 3462.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Barry Leiba is the document shepherd. I have reviewed this version, and am satisfied that it's ready.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document has adequate review, and I have no concerns.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

I have no concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

I have no concerns. There is no IPR involved.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

There is consensus of the working group, as a whole, behind it.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

All references are properly separated and labelled. There are no downward references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA Considerations section is correct and adequate.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

There is no formal language in this document.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.

The multipart/report media type is a general "family" or "container" type for electronic mail reports of any kind. Although this memo defines only the use of the multipart/report media type with respect to delivery status reports, mail processing programs will benefit if a single media type is used for all kinds of reports.

Practical experience has shown that the general requirement of having that media type constrained to be used only as the outermost MIME type of a message, while well-intentioned, has provided little operational benefit and actually limits such things as the transmission of multiple administrative reports within a single overall message container. In particular, it prevents one from forwarding a report as part of another multipart MIME message.

This update removes that constraint. No other changes apart from some editorial ones are made.

Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?

There was initially concern that the original requirement that multipart/report be a top-level-only media type was done for a good reason, and that the requirement should not be removed entirely. After some discussion, it seemed that the right approach was to retain the requirement in the context of newly generated DSNs, but to lift it in the more general case. This version of the document does just that, by reference to the original DSN specifications, and that formulation has broad consensus.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

Multipart/report is very widely implemented and deployed, and, in fact, it has been used in the form described herein, with the top-level constraint ignored, for years. Ned Freed, who is the expert reviewer for media types, has reviewed this update and is happy with it.