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

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:49:15 -0700 (PDT)

I said:

>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.

Ken Murchison <ken@xxxxxxxxxx> responds:

>No, I knew that it wasn't there,

What are you saying "no" to? You did not comment on it being gone, at
least not in any public forum I know of designed for this discussion.  
Don't tell me I'm wrong when clearly I am not. The fact that you knew it
wasn't there and did not comment is even stronger evidence that it not
being there is ok by you. If you cared, and knew, you could have
commented.

In fact, since your name is on the draft as an editor, you could have put 
it back had you thought it necessary; the fact you had access to the 
document and did not act to change it is an even stronger indication that 
it is ok by you. And that it came OUT under your name is proof that it is 
ok with you.

>and there are a lot of other things that
>should be in the Usefor draft and that have not made it there yet.

This group has been working on this stuff for YEARS. "Not made it there, 
yet"? If it hasn't "made it there, yet", it's way too late. How many "last 
calls" has this group been through, already?

>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.

If a header is MANDATORY in an article, then it is part of the syntax of 
that article. 

>I think you're taking the fact that neither RFC2822 nor USEFOR mandate 
>References too literally.

Excuse me? RFC2822 uses specific terms that say that the References header
is NOT mandatory, and even gives an example of how to deal with a reply
that does NOT contain a References header, and I'm being "too literal"?

This is a technical standard. Either it says what it means or it is 
broken. 

>USEFOR only documents what is necessary to make an article syntactically 
>correct, not what makes it useful in the Netnews world.

If a followup REQUIRES a References header, then a References header is 
REQUIRED to make that article "syntactically correct". Screw "useful", 
"useful" doesn't get you RFC2119 mandates. 

>In this regard, References is optional.

Yep. According to RFC2822 and draft-usefor-03, References is optional. In 
any article, even replies, and since replies are followups in our 
terminology, optional even in followups. 

>A "followup" article which doesn't have a References header is still 
>syntactically correct. 

Not if you think it MUST contain a References header. If you think it MUST 
contain a References header, a "followup that doesn't have a References 
header" is broken. Unfortunately, RFC2822 tells us how to process replies 
(one kind of followup) that don't contain a References header, so trying 
to pretend there is a mandate is just silly.

>USEPRO documents how to construct an article 
>("followup" or otherwise) which will play nice in the Netnews world.

Can we drop this stupid anthropomorphism? Articles don't "play", they are 
either correct or they are not. Transport agents either transport them or 
drop them. Reading agents either display them or do not. Articles without 
References headers exist and they are transported and displayed by the 
news system every day. They are not mandatory, and our draft now makes 
that clear. I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with this pretense that we 
can somehow sneak a mandate back into the standard after explicitely 
removing it. 

>In this regard, USEPRO can and should mandate that References be present 
>in "followup" articles.

Show me in RFC2119 where it uses the words "play nice" in regards to 
MUST/MUST NOT language. In fact, from what you've said about the 
References header, I see that RFC2119 says that we must not use RFC2119 
imperatives, since there is no requirement for interoperability in 
anything you've said. "Play nice" and "useful" are not reasons for 
RFC2119 language.

>USEPRO (and possibly USEAGE) will dictate when the optional headers 
>documented in USEFOR should and should not be used.

>I don't see a contradiction here, but maybe I'm wrong.

Since you conveniently reworded the problem into one of "should and should 
not" instead of the actual "MUST and MUST NOT", you can easily say you see 
no contradiction and then pretend that this lack of contradiction applies 
to the real issue at hand. Nice trick. Didn't work this time.

You cannot say "this is optional" and "this is mandatory" at the same
time. Pick one, stick with it, and accept the implications from your
choice. I've covered the implications, and "mandatory option" is not one
of them.

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:41:58 -0400

>>No, I knew that it wasn't there,

You have misquoted me here.  The above was written by Charles.

>>should be in the Usefor draft and that have not made it there yet.

Again a misquote.  If you're going to quote text, please attribute it to 
the correct party.

> choice. I've covered the implications, and "mandatory option" is not one

Thank you for your pleasant and constructive tone.

Is your argument that References shouldn't be required for followups 
(regardless of what USEFOR/USEPRO currently says) or that the current 
text is incorrect/ambiguous/contradictory/shitty?

If the former, please state so.  If the latter, please suggest some text 
for one or more of the documents that you feel is technically sound.

-- 
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