Subject: Re: Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor (fwd)

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:22:02 -0700 (PDT)

Third attempt at one message. This "open list" does not seem to be 
accepting messages ... 

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>The "SHOULD" in question is in the first paragraph of section 3.6.4 of RFC
>2822.

I know where the SHOULD comes from. RFC2822 isn't "in question", it is an
existing standard. The question is where you see a MUST in USEFOR. I don't 
see one. It simply isn't there. 

>The "MUST" in question arises from the long held consensus in this Working
>Group that the References header in News is NOT an "optional extra".

Not according to draft-usefor-03. According to draft-usefor-03, 
References is defined to be the same as in RFC2822, with the addition of a 
few bits that are not mandates for using it. This consensus you claim 
exists has a very odd way of being expressed in our products. Almost as if 
it doesn't really exist. 

The fact that I am the only one who even commented on it being gone is a
pretty good sign that nobody cares that it is gone.

>And you yourself have been at the forefront in upholding that consensus.

Hardly. I've repeatedly said "IF we are going to say that References
qualifies for RFC2119 mandates, THEN we should not water it down by saying
that non-followups MAY contain them." That first clause is called a
"conditional". If we DON'T say that References qualifies for such a
mandate (and I've argued that it is hard to justify one, if you recall),
then the situation is different. Like it is now. We currently do NOT say
it is mandatory. Once we say that, the rest of the argument about WHEN it
is mandatory goes away.

>That clear requirement has been in all our drafts up to article-13.

It is no longer a requirement at all in our draft. As you have been
quick to tell me when I object to changes YOU make, things change. Our 
current draft does NOT make it a requirement; it is lunacy to claim that 
this lack of mandate reflects a "consensus" that there is a mandate, or 
that the complete lack of comment about the change (other than your 
expressed belief that a missing mandate is still a mandate) is a better 
sign of consensus than your word for it.

At this point, the mandate is not part of the draft, and putting one in
would (or at least, should, in an honest system) require a strong
demonstration of interoperability issues. Since news systems simply do not
care if the header is in the article or not, there is no way to
demonstrate an interoperability issue, and thus RFC2119 language is not
appropriate. 

I've accepted the change, why is the editor whose name is on it as author
trying to claim it doesn't exist?

>The text regarding the References header in the new usefor-03 draft is
>just plain WRONG.

Says you. If it was wrong, it should not have been sent off as our work 
product without a single person here seeing it. Well, ok, maybe someone 
here did see it, but it sure wasn't announced for review prior to it 
becoming official. 

>But the requirement for
>the header to be present for followups has been omitted, and it needs to
>be put back (modulo the relatively minor matter of the precise wording).

You need to PROVE that NEED before you make a change to the draft. You
saying "we need this" doesn't meet the requirements of RFC2119 and you
know it. Were that all it takes, then we would be documenting PAM and MCT 
and making THEM mandatory. But, no. It doesn't work that way. You're 
taking all mention of those headers OUT of the drafts that still refer to 
them.

>And there is also an error in the syntax of the References header, which
>Frank Ellermann pointed out some while back, and which needs to be
>corrected.

Please stop trying to equate a syntax error with a change you want that 
has nothing to do with syntax. Making References optional (in accordance 
with RFC2822) is a different kind of change, and it's been made. Making it
MANDATORY needs strong justification, and I'll await your attempts at 
same. "Because it was that way before" doesn't work when I object to a 
change you decide to make, don't pretend that you can use it as an excuse.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:03:27 GMT

>pretty good sign that nobody cares that it is gone.

No, I knew that it wasn't there, and there are a lot of other things that
should be in the Usefor draft and that have not made it there yet. But I
do not want to be seen arguing with my co-editor in public if it can be
avoided. Especially on issues that do not appear to be the subject of
controversy.

>It is no longer a requirement at all in our draft.

Indeed, but a draft is only a draft. There has been no WG decision to
change the requirement for a References header in followups. Our Chair has
taken the view that Usefor is not the place to say it, but that Usepro IS
the proper place (and indeed there is already a corresponding MUST in
Usepro, though it may need a little more amplification). I do not agree
with the Chair on this one, but if nobody else speaks up and if his
ruling stands, then Usepro is where it will be said (which also,
incidentally, removes most of the cause of the disagreement there has been
about how to word it all).

But in that case, I will have to find somewhere in Usepro to say that the
References header MAY also be used in other cases such as multipart FAQs,
as well as pointing out the divergence from the SHOULD in RFC 2822.

>demonstrate an interoperability issue, and thus RFC2119 language is not

News readers that try to do threading care very much if it is missing.

-- 
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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:09:25 +0200

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> I do not want to be seen arguing with my co-editor in public
> if it can be avoided.

It would be rather nice if your co-editor says something in
public, like "hi there" for starters.

> There has been no WG decision to change the requirement for
> a References header in followups.

I'm completely lost with this stuff.  What's the precise
problem ?  Something without References is never a follow-up.

No References => no follow-up.

If that's the case we obviously also have:

Follow-up => references.

Based on this premise we don't have (and IMHO don't want):

References => follow-up

That's elementary logic as far as I'm concerned.  We don't
need your co-editor or Alexey for this issue, I'm 100% sure.

Now to the claim that it's exactly the same as in RfC 2822:
That's not exactly true.  We truncate References, RfC 2822
does not, that's a Usepro issue.  We separate References by
at least one WSP, RfC 2822 does not, that's a Usefor issue.

RfC 2822 fixes In-Reply-To without References, we'd expect
the same from a mail2news gateway, but don't need it within
news.  It doesn't hurt, but it's not required.

So what's the problem ?  It's an optional header field as
in RfC 2822, and its presence does not automatically mean
"follow-up", it could be also something else.

> I do not agree with the Chair on this one

I'm not even sure where you disagree.  Is it related to
anything I said above ?
                        Bye, Frank

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:32:02 -0700

> need your co-editor or Alexey for this issue, I'm 100% sure.

Sounds right to me.

If it doesn't have References, it's not a follow-up, but in practice
people use References for things other than follow-ups, and I don't see
any reason to ban those uses.  So the question is whether we want to
artificially define all those things as follow-ups as well, or not worry
about it and just say that References is required for follow-ups but may
also be used for other things.

The second seems clearer and simpler to me.

> at least one WSP, RfC 2822 does not, that's a Usefor issue.

Yup.

> news.  It doesn't hurt, but it's not required.

Yup.

> "follow-up", it could be also something else.

Exactly.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:29:29 GMT

>also be used for other things.

Exactly. Those other uses for the References header deserve a brief
mention somewhere, probably in USEFOR, but it would indeed be somewhat
artificial to define those cases as "followups", and I personally do not
want to do that.

>The second seems clearer and simpler to me.

Yes, that now seems to be where we are headed.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:22:39 GMT

>No References => no follow-up.

Which indeed follows from the fact that USEPRO says that a followup agent
MUST incorporate a References header (and do it correctly, of course).

>Follow-up => references.

A pure logical deduction indeed. But for the removal of all doubt, and to
emphasise the difference from the treatment of "replies" in RFC 2822, we
used to say that as well. Now we don't (because our Chair so decrees), but
because it was redundant nothing has actually changed (John's claims to
the contrary notwithstanding).

>References => follow-up

But there is just one niggle here (yes, I agree we want sometimes to use
References for multi-part FAQs and other special cases).

How do we define the term "followup".

Is is the the thing which is produced (as carefully defined in USEPRO) by
a "followup agent", or is it anything that has a References header. I
prefer the former (and you seem to have been using it in that sense), and
John has been arguing for the latter. Technically, it makes no difference
so long as we use the term consistently.

>I'm not even sure where you disagree.  Is it related to

It is because I preferred to mention it in both places, for the removal of
all doubt as stated above, and also to provide a convenient place to
introduce the special cases (FASQs etc) and to exaplain the semantics of
the header properly. That still has to be done somewhere, and probably in
USEFOR.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 05:25:05 +0200

> How do we define the term "followup".

| A "followup" is an article containing a response to the
| contents of an earlier article (the followup's "precursor").

Found in usefor-03.  It's used for things like "Followup-To: ".
Just above the definition of "Followup agent" in chapter 1.5
"Definitions".

> Is is the the thing which is produced (as carefully defined
> in USEPRO) by a "followup agent"

Sure.

> or is it anything that has a References header.

Not sure.  If it's the RfC 2822 idea of a reply coming from a
mail2news gateway it probably is some "followup", but behind a
gateway you never know.  Maybe it only had an In-Reply-To, the
gateway tried to fix it, but it was a broken pipermail archive
In-ReplyTo (the thread is then correct, but the "followup" is
shown at the wrong place in the thread).

> I prefer the former (and you seem to have been using it in
> that sense)

ACK.   You could add "it has a References header field" to be
absolutely sure:

  A "followup" is an article containing a response to the
  contents of an earlier article (the followup's "precursor"
  indicated in the "References" header field).

                                Bye, Frank

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:25:34 -0700

>   indicated in the "References" header field).

This is the definition that I'd go for.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:47:06 GMT

>Found in usefor-03.

Or as Alternative-1 in USEPRO.

>> or is it anything that has a References header.

Which is Alternative-2 in USEPRO.

I prefer Alternative-1, and I think most people are now of that view
(modulo minor wording tweaks).

>shown at the wrong place in the thread).

And lots of other ways it might have arisen. As Russ has said, referring
to some of those cases as followups would be "artificial".

>  indicated in the "References" header field).

Yes, I had already concluded that something like that would be helpful in
the definition. Russ seems to agree.

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:16:21 -0400

> about how to word it all).

I am in agreement with the Chair that this discussion belongs in USEPRO 
(I thought we had discussed this offline, but perhaps not).

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:24:39 -0400

> artificial to define those cases as "followups", and I personally do not

I disagree.  It is my opinion (and I believe our Chair's) that USEFOR 
only document the syntax of an article.  The use or non-use of any 
particular "optional" header such as References belongs in either USEPRO 
  or USEAGE.

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:27:21 -0400

> the definition. Russ seems to agree.

Done.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:04:25 GMT

>particular "optional" header such as References belongs in either USEPRO 

It also documents "semantics" - that is material that explains the
"meaning" of the header contents, and other explanatory/introductory
material, as in RFC 2822. See my reply to Forrest.

For sure, USEPRO tells you how to construct a "followup", but if there is
to be mention of "other" uses of References, then there is no obvious
place in USEPRO to mention them (unless you can suggest one).

The essential semantics of the References header, of course, is that it
contains a list of "precursors", and the special significance of the order
in which they are listed. But that in turn relies on a careful definition
of "precursor" (which is another possible place to point out that they
apply to more than "followups").