Subject: #1417: USEPRO 3.4: Injecting-agent modification of message-ID

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:24:07 -0800

Proposed wording:  Change the current text:

   6.   The injecting agent MUST NOT alter the body of the article in
        any way (including any change of Content-Transfer-Encoding).  It
        MAY add other header fields not already provided by the poster,
        but injecting agents are encouraged to use the Injection-Info
        header for such information and to minimize the addition of
        other headers.  It SHOULD NOT alter, delete, or reorder any
        existing header field except the Path header.

to:

   6.   The injecting agent MUST NOT alter the body of the article in
        any way (including any change of Content-Transfer-Encoding).  It
        MAY add other header fields not already provided by the poster,
        but injecting agents are encouraged to use the Injection-Info
        header for such information and to minimize the addition of
        other headers.  It SHOULD NOT alter, delete, or reorder any
        existing header field except the Path header field.  It MUST NOT
        alter or delete any existing Message-ID header field.

Note the minor s/Path header/Path header field/ change at the end of the
current text as well.  I noticed that while looking at this.

I'd prefer that discussion about changing the general SHOULD NOT about all
header fields to a MUST NOT be a separate discussion, since the Message-ID
has a distinguished protocol status and an interoperability use case that
the other header fields don't have.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:52:56 +0100

Russ Allbery wrote:

> I'd prefer that discussion about changing the general SHOULD NOT about
> all header fields to a MUST NOT be a separate discussion, since the 
> Message-ID has a distinguished protocol status and an interoperability
> use case that the other header fields don't have.

ACK, but is there any controversy about your proposal limited to the
Message-ID ?  IFF not I'd say "make it so".

Frank

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:24:06 -0800

Speaking as a contributor, I'm happy with this proposal for resolution.

Speaking as chair, I'll add this resolution proposal to the tracker, and 
assume that it represents an acceptable solution based on the positive 
comments + the lack of comments against it.

            Harald