Subject: Issues outstanding

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:51:39 -0800 (PST)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>4.  Terminology for followups.

>1. A followup is a response, and MUST have a References header. A part of
>   a multi-part FAQ (or anything similar) is not a followup, but it MAY
>   nevertheless have a References header.

No. Non-followups MUST NOT have a References header. That is the ONLY way 
to determine what is and is not a followup. That is the purpose of the 
References header. This is the position our draft (and precursors) have 
had for years.

But I note that the section of the draft which used to state that
References was mandatory for a followup and prohibited in a non-followup
has dissappeared. I find it in neither usefor or usepro. All I see is a
reference to RFC2822, which says that References SHOULD be used in a
reply. It is no longer mandatory in a reply.

When did we decide that References weren't mandatory in followups? Why did 
this text, which has been in the draft for years, get removed? 

>It has been established that there is no technical difference between
>these formulations. 

That is untrue. It has been established that using (1) does not allow 
anyone to determine if an article is a followup or not, while (2) does.
However, (2) now puts an extraneous requirement on the header, which does 
not match up with the actual definition of the header in our draft.

There are, of course, other issues outstanding, but since Charles doesn't 
want to talk about them, they weren't listed.

5. "Poster" is "author and sender". Nope, just "sender".

6. Outgoing gateways ought to mess with the bodies of a message "to 
prevent loops". Nope.

7. "By email" being the only method permitted to get articles to a 
moderator. Nope.

8. The implied ability of injecting agents to detect valid email addresses 
for a poster. Amazing.

9. "Taken" vs. "Copied" re. Followup agents, plus defaulted "by default" 
actions. Redundant/redefinition & unrequested/unilateral change.

10. Duties of a Reading Agent which we have no business assigning duties 
to, and which we actually DON'T assign duties to, despite a section of the 
draft with that title pretending to assign them.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:50:18 GMT

>No. Non-followups MUST NOT have a References header.

If you want to follow that principle, then you need definition #2.

I offered 2 definitions and described their consequences. You can take
your pick. So can everyone else.

>this text, which has been in the draft for years, get removed? 

Yes, there are still several things missing from the USEFOR draft, and
that is one of them. I have suggested a suitable text to my co-author (two
texts, actually, to match the two definitions), and hopefully something
suitable will appear in the next draft.

>That is untrue.

You have so asserted many times. Several members of this WG who have taken
the trouble to read your rants on the topic have agreed that what I stated
is correct. I regard that issue as closed. All we need to do now is to
decide which formulation to go ahead with.

>want to talk about them, they weren't listed.

There are indeed various smaller issues under discussion, but the four
that I singled out are the major ones which are holding up progress on the
drafts.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5