Subject: Not tracking minor issues

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:14:01 +0100

I've created 3 tickets (1155, 1156, 1157) with the "major" issues raised 
against -06.

There were a number of minor issues raised, to which Ken said "OK" - I'm 
planning to not track those. I'm not completely sure they were all minor.

So - if anyone thinks that there are more issues that should be tracked - 
please send an email to the list with ONE issue and the word "ISSUE:" in 
the subject line.

Yours for a document-finishing 2006....

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:58:19 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> please send an email to the list with ONE issue and the word
> "ISSUE:" in the subject line.

A clearer ABNF for <host-value> as recommended in 4234...

-   host-value      =  dot-atom-text / [ dot-atom-text ":" ]
-                      ( IPv4address / IPv6address ) ;  see [RFC 3986]

+ host-value = dot-atom-text / IPv4address / IPv6address /
+              ( dot-atom-text ":" ( IPv4address / IPv6address ))

...or a "better" (?) ABNF in the style of 2821/3986 IP-literal:

+ IP-literal  = "[" ( IPv4address / IPv6address ) "]"
+
+ host-value  = dot-atom-text / IP-literal /
+               ( dot-atom-text IP-literal )

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:23:20 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
 
> if anyone thinks that there are more issues that should be
> tracked

Draft -06 says:

- If a news server can verify the sender of an article, it
- SHOULD use this <parameter> in favor of the "posting-
- account" <parameter>.

Charles reported that this is an old consensus, but I think
it's wrong.  Technically news servers should be free to use
either method.  For privacy reasons they might prefer the
<posting-account> approach.

+ Typically a news server uses either a "posting-account"
+ or a verified "sender" parameter, inserting the <mailbox>
+ has implications for the privacy of users.

BTW, it's possible that some kind of old consensus included
me, in that case I've changed my mind:  "Killfiling" is an
important feature for those who have it, but enforcing that
possibility with a SHOULD goes to far.

                          Bye, Frank

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:41:13 +0100

Assigned ticket #1158.

> +               ( dot-atom-text IP-literal )

This is different from the previous version, which didn't have the square 
brackets. Scared of changing stuff... despite my love of square brackets...

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:48:14 +0100

Added.

> possibility with a SHOULD goes to far.

"posting-account" mentions privacy. Offhand, "sender" seems more sensitive 
than "posting-account".

s/If a ... SHOULD ..// (delete the entire requirement) would make me happy.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:56:56 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> s/If a ... SHOULD ..// (delete the entire requirement) would > make me happy.

Me too, but Charles hated it.  Maybe s/SHOULD/should/ could do.

Or s/SHOULD use/would consider to use/.  Scott prefers to avoid
lower case 2119 keywords whereever possible.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:02:51 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Scared of changing stuff... despite my love of square
> brackets...

...then let's take the 1st "4234-beautified" variant and add
a note "any <host-value> with a colon has to be quoted as per
[RFC2045]".  It's too easy to get this wrong, and it's the
main difference from the NNTP-Posting-Host header field body.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 12:23:11 GMT

><posting-account> approach.

They ARE free to use either. The agreed paragraph mentioning the privacy
issues is now in USEAGE, which is the right place for it.

I would agree, however, that the sentence with that "SHOULD" does go
against the idea that it is an implementor's choice. And in practice
the possibility for an injecting agent to know the email address of the
sender is restricted to organizations which run their own injecting agent
(so it would not apply to an article injected with an NNTP POST command,
unless it could be picked up from a SASL authentication).

So I could accept a weaker formulation of that sentence, such as

"... Use of this <parameter> is prefereable to a "posting-account"
<parameter> in cases when a news server can verify the sender of an
article."

It might also be useful to add something like:

"It is up to the administrators of a news server to choose which of these
<parameter>(s) to include. This is discussed further in [USEAGE]."

>+ has implications for the privacy of users.

But no. Let us leave mention of privacy oissues to USEAGE.

-- 
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: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:12:40 +0100

Speaking as contributor:

> <parameter> in cases when a news server can verify the sender of an

It just so happens that I strongly disagree; "posting-account" (if done 
like suggested here) preserves my anonymity to exactly the degree I've 
chosen when picking my From: field and agreed with my sysadmin. "Sender" 
does not.

So if stating a preference, I'd do it the other way round.

> <parameter>(s) to include. This is discussed further in [USEAGE]."

I agree that it fits better in [USEAGE]. Deleting the preference here and 
adding the Note would satisfy me.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 17:11:56 GMT

>adding the Note would satisfy me.

That is certainly a proper course if we cannot agree otherwise.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 17:16:40 GMT

>main difference from the NNTP-Posting-Host header field body.

I am not sure that we need to draw attention in detail to ALL the
situations where quoting might be required, given the NOTE which warns you
of the general case.

BTW, here is a niggle for KEN that I just spotted. The example that is
currently given

   sender = "\"Joe Q. Public\" <[email-masked]>"

is actually a part of that NOTE, and therefore ought to be indented
accordingly.