Subject: Ticket status, USEPRO

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:02:04 +0100

The following tickets are open:

#1083: USEPRO 5.3: Rules for generating message-ID
  No change required
#1093: USEPRO 2.3: Supported email addresses
  No change required.
#1412: USEPRO 5.3: Cancel newsgroups: Matching
  No discussion.
#1413: USEPRO 5.5: ihave/sendme syntax
  Text accepted
#1414: USEPRO 3.2.1: delimiter for multiple Path identities
  No discussion
#1415: USEPRO 3.2.1: Number of path entries per site
  No discussion
#1416: USEPRO 3.9: Reinjection and Injection-Date
  Controversial. I'll make a separate note on this.
#1417: USEPRO 3.4: Injecting-agent modification of message-ID
  Text accepted

So we have 2 "text accepted", 3 "No discussion", and 1 "controversial". 
Who knows - we might finish this soon?

When following up, please place the ticket number in the subject line, 
and follow up ONE ticket per message, unless the message proposes that 
two tickets should be merged.

                     Harald

---

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:48:12 -0500

>   Controversial. I'll make a separate note on this.

I think there is some agreement between those participating.

Charles keeps pushing for a larger variety of uses to
be covered.

Is it possible to settle on a small subset of uses and
define and cover those in the section on re-injection?
For example, the "disjoint network" wording is a problem
because it is not well defined, EXCEPT in the case where
you know the post originated locally, you are not a true
relaying peer, and you are re-posting it to one injection
server.  It is not difficult to write language to cover
this use.  Problems with the text are raised when
we try to cover wider uses, not this constrained case.

We've also had someone indicate that the 3-4 day typical
stale cutoff is adequate in practice.  I can live with that too:
remove the use of Injection-Date header.

---

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:57:34 -0500

> Who knows - we might finish this soon?

After we settle on the reinjection text, I think there will
need to be some alteration to the Gateways section.

I mentioned this when writing a message on Jan 19. I did not raise an
issue (pending the re-injection text.)

http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg03883.html

I don't have reason to think the corresponding changes would be controversial.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:00:29 GMT

>I think there is some agreement between those participating.

Well Russ wrote a long message in which he suggested, amongst other
things, allowing the posting agent to set the Injection-Date, with the
understanding that injecting agents MUST then accept what they are given.

I wrote a long reply, with various comments, but basically accepting that
as a way forward, but with various details of the approach still needing
to be fixed.

It would help if Russ were to reply to that message.

>Charles keeps pushing for a larger variety of uses to

I don't think the variety of uses is the issue. It is the underlying
principles, and the various uses merely provide test cases against which
the principles can be assessed (basically, people are going to do all
sorts of things which it is hard to foresee). Having said that, there are
some specific circumstances which we need to discuss and understand, and
that might lead to some specific wording/exceptions/whatever.

>stale cutoff is adequate in practice.

It often is, but sometimes is not. And typical currect practice seems to
be to allow longer.

>  I can live with that too:

But USEFOR is now approved as a P-S. 

-- 
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: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:36:20 -0800

> I wrote a long reply, with various comments, but basically accepting
> that as a way forward, but with various details of the approach still
> needing to be fixed.

> It would help if Russ were to reply to that message.

I know, and I will.  As I warned, I don't have a tremendous amount of time
to participate in the working group (which I know was disguised by
managing to find time for several weeks after I said that, but that really
was a fluke).

I owe you a reply and a more specific proposal incorporating your
feedback.  Although please don't let that stop anyone else from weighing
in on that thread; we need more general discussion.

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

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:39:33 GMT

>Who knows - we might finish this soon?

OK, so that leaves room for some more ISSUES not so urgent. I have just
reviewed my original list of protocol problems. and there are still some I
want to raise. But not tonight.

And I shall also review the three 'do discuusion' cases.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:41:53 GMT

>want to raise. But not tonight.

Now it is morning (or afternoon to be more accurate) so I have raised a
further 5 issues (or lesser importance than my first batch, but still
requiring decisions). I reckon 5 is as much at the WG (and Russ in
particular) can handle at once.

>And I shall also review the three 'do discuusion' cases.

Which I have now done.