Subject: January: open issues on USEPRO

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:00:11 +0100

Another 1.5 months slipped by since my Dec 7 summary.

USEPRO -13 was published on December 14.

We have 2 issues that are not closed, and our AD is wondering whether or 
not we consider Last Call to have been successful.

The list of issues either open or mentioned in the last summary, with
changed status, if any:

1415    USEPRO 3.2.1 - Number of path entries per site
   CLOSED as "acceptable".
1479    USEPRO: Whether moderators SHOULD retain message-ID
   CLOSED - consensus text is in -13.
1582 USEPRO LC 4.3 / 5.2.3: 4.3 overlooks chkscope
   CLOSED - text is in -13.

1583 USEPRO LC 5.2.3: Checkgroups control messages
   Open. There may be multiple issues here.
   No discussion with "1583" in the subject.
1584 USEPRO LC 3.2.1: Adding Injection-Date at posting agent
   Open.
   No discussion with "1584" in the subject.

1586 USEPRO LC 3.4.1: Multiple POSTED in Path: header
   CLOSED.
   Charles and Russ agree on "SHOULD NOT" contain. This text is in -13.

                        Harald

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:41:43 GMT

>   No discussion with "1583" in the subject.

I think we agreed that the present checkgroups message has a problem. The
draft introduces a new feature which addresses that problem, which will
work fine if checkgroups issuers use it, and it checkgroups receivers
recognise it.

But if it isn't used or recognised, then the original problem will remain,
and there is nothing much we can do about it. Therefore I think no action
is needed - the present wording is the best that can be done.

>   No discussion with "1584" in the subject.

I proposed a wording of the form "In situation X, posting agents MAY do
Y". Russ responded that he would prefer that situation X did not arise,
but agreed that it could not be prevented, in which case my wording might
be helpful. But he asked that it be raised as an Issue so that comments
could be solicited.

So I would ask Russ if, in view of what he said before and the lack of
further discussion, he would be happy for my wording to be included.

>   Charles and Russ agree on "SHOULD NOT" contain. This text is in -13.

No, that is not correct. Russ agreed that the original "MUST" was too
strong, and that it should come down to at least "SHOULD". But I wanted to
weaken it still further, so that part of the issue still remains. I shall
propose a text in a separate message.

-- 
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