Subject: Suggested References texts

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:11:54 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>   A "followup" is an article containing a response to the contents of
>   an earlier article. It will always include a References header
>   pointing to that earlier article and any other "precursors".

USEFOR and RFC2822 contradict this. Since we've already decided to follow
RFC2822 in this matter, your text is wrong. RFC2822 is explicit in
providing guidance for processing of replies to replies that have no
References header; clearly a reply sans References header is allowed by
RFC2822.

>   4. If the precursor did not have a References header (F-3.2.1), the
>      content of the followup's References header MUST be inherited from
>      that of the Message-ID header of the precursor. A followup to an
>      article which already had a References header MUST have a
>      References header comprising the precursor's References header
>      (subject to trimming as described below) followed by CFWS and the
>      Message-ID header content of the precursor.

RFC2822 contradicts this, and we have already decided that RFC2822 is the 
definition we are using. Further, these mandates have not been justified 
wrt RFC2119, which prohibits their use except for good cause.

>       NOTE: The two "MUST"s above ensure compliance with the
>       definition of the term "followup". 

This is absolutely ridiculous. RFC2119 does not allow mandates to be used  
just to "ensure compliance with a definition". There has to be an 
interoperatbility issue, and no such issue has been shown. This "MUST" is 
specious and violates existing standards, and contradicts our own draft
regarding article format.

>       with the weaker recomendation using "SHOULD" applied, in [RFC
>       2822], to the generation of "replies" in email. 

RFC2822 is not limited to "email", and it is dishonest to try to pretend 
that it is, especially when we defer to RFC2822 for news headers.

>I think we are now sufficiently agreed about the References header (except
>perhaps for John) to write some text.

It is dishonest to ignore people who disagree with you, Charles.

---

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>Let us recap the history here. It is accepted, I believe, (using Frank
>Ellermann's notation)

Frank's notation is confusing. Does '=>' mean "is a member of", "implies", 
or something else? Simple english works so much better here, I suggest it 
be used.

>   followup -> references header
 
A followup requires a References header? (Yes under RFC1036, no under 
RFC2822). A followup contains a References header?  A followup is defined 
by a References header? What?

>   no references header -> not a followup
 
Ahhh, perhaps '=>' means "means"? (Is '->' the same as '=>'?) So, no 
References means an article is not a followup? Well, yes, according to 
RFC1036, not according to USEFOR draft 03 and RFC2822. 

>and at one time we had
>   references header -> followup

And then you changed it.

>But then, some months back, it was pointed out that some writers of multipart
>FAQs regularly used References headers to join the later parts to the
>earlier ones, and RFC 2046 suggests the use of References headers in
>message/partial. And there were other examples too.

None of which required the change you made.

>Did we want to forbid these practices, and would they actually disappear
>even if we did?

So the choice was to evicerate the References header instead of expand the 
definition of followup trivially.

>Inevitably, this changes the information that a reading agent can deduce
>when it sees a References header.

Wrong. Making References legal in non-followups changed the information 
that could be deduced. "Is this a followup" cannot be answered using your 
changes. It could before you made them.

>It can no longer deduce "this is a followup".

I keep telling you this, and yet, you keep telling me that this is not a
change.

>So you can no longer assert "references header -> followup". The question
>is 'Does this matter?'.  I don't see why it should.

That is your value judgement, not a fact. In fact, many people do think it 
matters, and many people want that ability. Richard Clayton was just here 
arguing that it is important, and that he even considers it an 
interoperability issue. Do you understand the difference between saying "I 
don't think it is important and thus shouldn't be possible" and "I don't 
think it is important enough to merit RFC2119 mandates?"

But now that it is gone, we need to unify on one position. Either it is or 
it isn't important. One document written as if it isn't and one written as 
if it is is just ridiculous. Pick one and stick with it for more than a 
week.