Internet DRAFT - draft-buxey-document
draft-buxey-document
Network Working Group A. Buxey
Internet-Draft Loughborough University
Expires: July 27, 2006 January 23, 2006
Clearing attributes on non-referenced material
draft-buxey-document-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 27, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
RFC 822 [RFC0822] defines many headers which can be applied to email
messages and RFC 2076 [RFC2076] provides a simple summary of the
commonly occurring headers in headings of e-mail messages. Both of
these RFCs define the 'In-Reply-To' and 'References' fields - which
have since had their definitions improved in RFC 2822 [RFC2822] and
RFC 1036 [RFC1036] respectively. These fields are used by 'thread
capable' email clients to display messages grouped together in
organised parent/child relationships that enable the reader to follow
a train of thought or a process of information dissemination.
Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006
However, if a reply to such a threaded message does not contain
relevant follow-up information or is used as a platform to deliver a
new message with new subject, then that reply is put within the
already existing thread. This is known as 'Thread-Jacking'. This
draft proposes a couple of techniques which can be undertaken to
resolve this issue within the scope of email.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Thread-Jacking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Creation of new threads via a simple procedure . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. A reply with new subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. A reply with new content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10
Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006
1. Thread-Jacking
Thread-Jacking, in email parlance, is defined as 'High-jacking a
current topic with your own related or unrelated topic'. This can be
done deliberately but is mainly done innocently without the user
realising the effects - without a knowledge of the underlying
reference method. Subject line change often occurs and is an obvious
way to other readers that the new message is not part of the original
thread. One common reason for this occurring is that it is a lot
easier for a user to press the reply button in their client than it
is to create a new mail and copy the mailing list address into the
To: location of their client.
Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006
2. Creation of new threads via a simple procedure
A trivial method for new messages to be removed from previous threads
is defined
2.1. A reply with new subject
If the user replaces the email clients default Subject line when
replying to an email within a threaded conversation, then the email
client MUST clear the In-Reply-To and Reference fields. As this
issue is mainly associated with users who use the Reply function of
their email client as an easy route to getting an email sent to the
recipients (the To: and Reply-To: fields being automatically
populated) it is RECOMMENDED that email clients have a second method
of replying to such emails. Such a method COULD be a qualifier key
being pressed when clicking on the Reply button in a graphical email
client, or an alternative key combination when using a text-based
client e.g. Alt-R.
2.2. A reply with new content
If a user deletes all previous content and creates a new body of
content then the thread is no longer valid. The email client MUST
clear the In-Reply-To and Reference fields. Email clients have their
default quotation markings that define previously written content
that a user is replying to. If none of these can be found in the
body of the email when being sent, then the email client MUST treat
this as a new message and clear the thread-aware attributes, if email
security methods are in place such as public key signing then the
fields must be removed before such processes occur.
Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006
3. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006
4. Security Considerations
None.
Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006
5. Acknowledgements
Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC0822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
[RFC1036] Horton, M. and R. Adams, "Standard for interchange of
USENET messages", RFC 1036, December 1987.
[RFC2076] Palme, J., "Common Internet Message Headers", RFC 2076,
February 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001.
6.2. Informative References
Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006
Author's Address
Alan Buxey
Loughborough University
Epinal Way
Loughborough, Leics LE11 3TU
UK
Phone: +44-1509-222320
Email: a.l.m.buxey@lboro.ac.uk
Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 10]
