Subject: Re: Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:39:40 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>And why does the Usefor draft contain the words

>   None of the headers appearing in this section is required to appear
>   in every article but some of them are required in certain types of
>   article, such as followups.

Because someone (an editor, perhaps?) overlooked this statement when
removing the mandate for References? Remove the "such as" clause and the
problem is fixed. Do it and lets move on. Problem solved.

>Which clearly implies that we have signed up to everything in RFC 2822
>Section 3.6.4 except as detailed otherwise, which means that we have
>signed up to that "SHOULD", which we haven't.

Clearly the text in usefor-03 says we HAVE signed up for RFC2822, since it
says that. "as defined in ... with these limited exceptions" means "as 
defined in" with a few exceptions, none of which is a mandate for use in 
any kind of article, only mandates about what it contains when it is used.

>Netnews departs from RFC 2822 in various ways, which we document.

Yep. And one of those ways is no longer a mandatory References header in
this nebulous "followup" thing. Undocumented "MUSTS" are not MUSTS. 
"Charles says..." is not RFC2119 justification.

The side effect is now that THIS requirement is gone, there is no way of
identifying what is and is not a followup no matter WHAT definition of
followup may be used, so there is no reason to argue about what is and is
not a followup anymore. If you think that not being able to identify what
is a followup isn't important (i.e., it's ok for non-followups to contain
References headers) then you cannot possibly think it is important enough
to identify followups that the header designed for that purpose has to be
mandatory. Be consistent -- either it's important or it isn't.

Don't think that the mandate can be slipped back into USEPRO, since any
mandate in USEPRO would contradict USEFOR, and that would look stupid. If
USEFOR says it's optional, then USEPRO cannot claim that it is an
interoperability issue and is thus not optional.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:06:14 GMT

>mandatory. Be consistent -- either it's important or it isn't.

No, the requirement has not gone.

>interoperability issue and is thus not optional.

The mandate in question is already in USEPRO. And always has been.

-- 
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: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:11:46 -0400

> problem is fixed. Do it and lets move on. Problem solved.

Done.

-- 
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