Subject: Re: References

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:28:51 -0700 (PDT)

Ken Murchison <ken@xxxxxxxxxx>:

> It is mandatory as stated in USEPRO.

It cannot be mandatory in USEPRO when it is already defined to be optional 
in both USEFOR and RFC2822. 

> I'll reiterate what I stated elsewhere in the thread.

> USEFOR documents the proper syntax of the set of headers typically used in 
> news articles.

That is not what you said. You said:

> It is my opinion (and I believe our Chair's) that USEFOR only document the 
> syntax of an article.

The "syntax of an article" includes what headers it is required to 
contain. The "syntax of a header" defines the contents of a header; the 
syntax of an article defines the contents of an article. USEFOR is USENET 
Format -- which is clearly not just the headers but the contents of 
articles that are valid USENET articles. 

USEFOR does not just tell us the correct syntax of the From header, it
tells us that the From header is MANDATORY. It does the same for several
other headers. Thus, it is clear that USEFOR is not just "syntax of
headers", it includes "syntax of articles".

In that job of "syntax of articles", USEFOR tells us that References is
optional. References is optional.

USEFOR and USEPRO are supposed to complement each other, not contradict.
Our Chair has said USEFOR is right not to talk about a mandate, although
he's said that because he thinks it can be slipped in after the fact in
USEPRO. I agree USEFOR is right not to talk about a mandate -- for a
different reason. If you want a mandate, do it honestly and in conformance
with RFC2119. Justify it and you can have it. So far, you haven't.
"Easier" and "play nice" don't even come close.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:11:50 +0100

>in both USEFOR and RFC2822.
Surely it can, because USEFOR equally applies to *all* types of USEFOR 
articles and USEPRO may add additional restrictions for particular types 
of articles.

>optional. References is optional.
See my comment above.