Subject: Re: #1047 (was: Old ticket status - USEFOR - Jan 3, 2006)

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:18:03 -0800 (PST)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>... all it needs to do it to pick out the
>delimiters, pick out the stuff between them (it might or might not worry
>about illegal characters in the 'stuff'), and then see if the 'stuff' is
>recorded in its 'sys' file as a place that it need not relay the article
>to.

In other words, we expect it to do the wrong thing if there is an IPv6
colonized "stuff between them" that matches a UUCP name.

Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>It MUST be possible to get this right, assuming that it really
>is what we want (the main problem, what should the Path be ?).

The Path header field should be a list of the servers through which an 
article has passed. That's why it's called "Path" and not 
"PathAndWhateverElse".

If a server chooses to identify itself by IPv4 address, there is no 
problem.

If a server chooses to identify itself by IPv6 address, it can do so by 
simply removing all colons as I've already proposed, and there is no 
problem.

If we want to say that a receiving server can prepend the known identity 
of a server if the peer has used something it doesn't know, then it can do 
so. That can be an IP address.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>  Still open whether USEFOR should specify syntax that allows one to
>  tell the difference between a path-identity and a diagnostic.

USEFOR specifies article syntax, yes? Is there a reason to HAVE a 
"diagnostic"? If so, then yes, USEFOR must specify a syntax that allows 
one to tell the difference. If the question of being able to differentiate 
is "still open", then I suggest that the question of the need for defining 
a "diagnostic" is still open. Just what IS the need? (Oh yes, colons MUST 
be allowed somehow, even if we could just get rid of them altogether, 
and instead of allowing them in "path-identity", we create a new thing
that does allow them but can appear in all the same places a 
path-identity does.)

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:56:04 GMT

>colonized "stuff between them" that matches a UUCP name.

We have already agreed that we can tolerate the occasional dead:beef
problem, provided we ensure that it can only arise with barewords composed
only from hex digits (though the present text in draft-06 does not ensure
this yet).

>Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

[snip]

>If a server chooses to identify itself by IPv4 address, there is no 

We have already agreed not to permit sites to identify _themselves_ with
IP addresses (I might agree with you that it is an unnecessary
restriction, but it is the consensus reached, and so I will stand by it).

>"diagnostic"?

Our drafts have had diagnostics for the past umpteen years. Firstly with
Brad's special delimiters, and more recently with the keyword MISMATCH and
the '!!' notation. All we are doing now is considering whether to tidy up
some existing usages which don't currently have a keyword to identify
them.

-- 
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