From nobody Fri May 13 08:20:54 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5786A12D586 for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 08:20:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sI-ohezQAP5H for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 08:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp01.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.123]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0980E12D57E for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 08:20:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home ([92.170.5.52]) by mwinf5d01 with ME id trLh1s00C17Lgi403rLhV4; Fri, 13 May 2016 17:20:42 +0200 X-ME-Helo: macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home X-ME-Auth: anVsaWVuLmVsaWVAd2FuYWRvby5mcg== X-ME-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 17:20:42 +0200 X-ME-IP: 92.170.5.52 To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , ietf-message-headers@ietf.org, usefor@ietf.org References: <573572C7.4020408@ninebynine.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_=c3=89LIE?= Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/ Message-ID: <9ea7e62b-9a21-1102-eb3e-e12b574b9e89@trigofacile.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 17:20:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <573572C7.4020408@ninebynine.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: Graham Klyne Subject: Re: [usefor] Changes to netnews header registrations X-BeenThere: usefor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of usefor issues." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 15:20:53 -0000 Hi Graham, First of all, thanks for reviewing the request I sent. I add the USEFOR IETF WG in copy of this message, in case they wish to comment. > As reviewer for the IANA message headers registry > (http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml), > I've received a request to change references to rename > "[Son-of-1036]" references to "[RFC1849]"? This document is now > published as a historic RFC. > > I propose to make a recommendation that goes beyond the original > request, and as such I thought I should submit my proposed > recommendation to public review. > > I think the requested change is appropriate with respect to the > following message header fields: > > Also-control > Article-names > Article-updates > See-also > > (Did I miss any?) These are indeed the 4 message header fields obsoleted by RFC1849. > I also think that RFC5536 should be cited for these headers, as it is > this document that formally declared them to be obsolete > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-6). Yes, RFC5536 can be cited instead of, or along with, RFC1849. > While we're at it, I'd suggest also citing RFC5536 for the following > header fields, also obsoleted by that document > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-3.3 and #section-6): > > Date-Received netnews obsoleted [RFC0850] > Posting-Version netnews obsoleted [RFC0850] > Relay-Version netnews obsoleted [RFC0850] > NNTP-Posting-Date netnews obsoleted > NNTP-Posting-Host netnews obsoleted [RFC2980] > > If I hear no objection within a few days, I'll pass this recommendaton > to IANA. Couldn't X-Trace and X-Complaints-To header fields also be added to that list? X-Trace netnews obsoleted [RFC5536] X-Complaints-To netnews obsoleted [RFC5536] They are indeed mentioned at the same time as NNTP-Posting-Host in Section 3.2.8 of RFC5536, and are no longer useful with Injection-Info header field: NOTE: Some of this information has previously been sent in non- standardized header fields such as NNTP-Posting-Host, X-Trace, X-Complaints-To, and others. Once a news server generates an Injection-Info header field, it should have no need to send these non-standard header fields. While we're at it, couldn't MIME-related header fields also be added as standard for netnews? MIME-Version netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] Content-Type netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] Content-Transfer-Encoding netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] Content-Disposition netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] Content-Language netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] As a matter of fact, Section 3.2 of RFC5536 speaks of them, with added restrictions in syntax: None of the header fields appearing in this section are required to appear in every article, but some of them may be required in certain types of articles. Further discussion of these requirements appears in [RFC5537] and [USEAGE]. The header fields Comments, Keywords, Reply-To, and Sender are used in Netnews articles in the same circumstances and with the same meanings as those specified in [RFC5322], with the added restrictions detailed above in Section 2.2. Multiple occurrences of the Keywords header field are not permitted. comments = "Comments:" SP unstructured CRLF keywords = "Keywords:" SP phrase *("," phrase) CRLF reply-to = "Reply-To:" SP address-list CRLF sender = "Sender:" SP mailbox CRLF The MIME header fields MIME-Version, Content-Type, Content-Transfer- Encoding, Content-Disposition, and Content-Language are used in Netnews articles in the same circumstances and with the same meanings as those specified in [RFC2045], [RFC2183], and [RFC3282], with the added restrictions detailed above in Section 2.2. Thanks, -- Julien ÉLIE « Pour célébrer ce jour heureux, buvons un coup, buvons-en deux. » (Aristophane) From nobody Mon May 16 01:19:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2966A12B00C; Mon, 16 May 2016 01:19:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ASCx7XGL-HMT; Mon, 16 May 2016 01:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay13.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay13.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.166]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CFF412B007; Mon, 16 May 2016 01:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp5.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.207]) by relay13.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1b2DkT-0005VQ-h5; Mon, 16 May 2016 09:19:33 +0100 Received: from [104.238.169.54] (helo=sasharissa.local) by smtp5.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1b2DkT-0008V7-Gi; Mon, 16 May 2016 09:19:33 +0100 Message-ID: <573982D3.1090106@ninebynine.org> Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:20:35 +0100 From: Graham Klyne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?SnVsaWVuIMOJTElF?= , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , ietf-message-headers@ietf.org, usefor@ietf.org References: <573572C7.4020408@ninebynine.org> <9ea7e62b-9a21-1102-eb3e-e12b574b9e89@trigofacile.com> In-Reply-To: <9ea7e62b-9a21-1102-eb3e-e12b574b9e89@trigofacile.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Oxford-Username: zool0635 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [usefor] Changes to netnews header registrations X-BeenThere: usefor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of usefor issues." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 08:19:37 -0000 Hi Julien, Thanks for your update and confirmation of the affected fields. TL;DR: I don't propose to recommend the additional changes you suggest as I'm not seeing that they really contribute to the purpose of the registry (cf. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-2.2.2). In slightly more detail, I offer the following reasons: 1. My rationale in suggesting the changes I did was to help keep the registry reasonably aligned with the relevant IANA considerations RFC sections. The additional headers you mention don't appear in the document IANA considerations. 2. With reference to the X-headers you mention, I see little point in adding new, non-standard headers to the registry simply to indicate they are now obsolete. (There could be a case for doing this if they are in widespread use, but I think that should be a separate discussion, and a new RFC with its own IANA considerations section. I suspect it's not worth the effort!) 3. The other headers you mention are not substantively changed by RFC 5536: the restrictions noted are specifically with respect to the netnews protocol, and as such are not really relevant to the registry purpose. 4. I did consider that "netnews" might be added to the protocol options for the MIME-version and Content-* header fields you mention, but as they are already registered as MIME headers that doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-2.2.2). #g -- On 13/05/2016 16:20, Julien ÉLIE wrote: > Hi Graham, > > First of all, thanks for reviewing the request I sent. > I add the USEFOR IETF WG in copy of this message, in case they wish to comment. > > >> As reviewer for the IANA message headers registry >> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml), >> I've received a request to change references to rename >> "[Son-of-1036]" references to "[RFC1849]"? This document is now >> published as a historic RFC. >> >> I propose to make a recommendation that goes beyond the original >> request, and as such I thought I should submit my proposed >> recommendation to public review. >> >> I think the requested change is appropriate with respect to the >> following message header fields: >> >> Also-control >> Article-names >> Article-updates >> See-also >> >> (Did I miss any?) > > These are indeed the 4 message header fields obsoleted by RFC1849. > > >> I also think that RFC5536 should be cited for these headers, as it is >> this document that formally declared them to be obsolete >> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-6). > > Yes, RFC5536 can be cited instead of, or along with, RFC1849. > > >> While we're at it, I'd suggest also citing RFC5536 for the following >> header fields, also obsoleted by that document >> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-3.3 and #section-6): >> >> Date-Received netnews obsoleted [RFC0850] >> Posting-Version netnews obsoleted [RFC0850] >> Relay-Version netnews obsoleted [RFC0850] >> NNTP-Posting-Date netnews obsoleted >> NNTP-Posting-Host netnews obsoleted [RFC2980] >> >> If I hear no objection within a few days, I'll pass this recommendaton >> to IANA. > > Couldn't X-Trace and X-Complaints-To header fields also be added to that list? > > X-Trace netnews obsoleted [RFC5536] > X-Complaints-To netnews obsoleted [RFC5536] > > They are indeed mentioned at the same time as NNTP-Posting-Host in Section 3.2.8 > of RFC5536, and are no longer useful with Injection-Info header field: > > NOTE: Some of this information has previously been sent in non- > standardized header fields such as NNTP-Posting-Host, X-Trace, > X-Complaints-To, and others. Once a news server generates an > Injection-Info header field, it should have no need to send these > non-standard header fields. > > > > > While we're at it, couldn't MIME-related header fields also be added as standard > for netnews? > > MIME-Version netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] > Content-Type netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] > Content-Transfer-Encoding netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] > Content-Disposition netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] > Content-Language netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] > > As a matter of fact, Section 3.2 of RFC5536 speaks of them, with added > restrictions in syntax: > > None of the header fields appearing in this section are required to > appear in every article, but some of them may be required in certain > types of articles. Further discussion of these requirements appears > in [RFC5537] and [USEAGE]. > > The header fields Comments, Keywords, Reply-To, and Sender are used > in Netnews articles in the same circumstances and with the same > meanings as those specified in [RFC5322], with the added restrictions > detailed above in Section 2.2. Multiple occurrences of the Keywords > header field are not permitted. > > comments = "Comments:" SP unstructured CRLF > > keywords = "Keywords:" SP phrase *("," phrase) CRLF > > reply-to = "Reply-To:" SP address-list CRLF > > sender = "Sender:" SP mailbox CRLF > > The MIME header fields MIME-Version, Content-Type, Content-Transfer- > Encoding, Content-Disposition, and Content-Language are used in > Netnews articles in the same circumstances and with the same meanings > as those specified in [RFC2045], [RFC2183], and [RFC3282], with the > added restrictions detailed above in Section 2.2. > > > Thanks, > From nobody Mon May 16 01:32:13 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25D812B04C; Mon, 16 May 2016 01:32:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6zOwdXJd3R94; Mon, 16 May 2016 01:32:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E207612B007; Mon, 16 May 2016 01:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207]) by relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1b2DwZ-0002eT-mi; Mon, 16 May 2016 09:32:03 +0100 Received: from [104.238.169.54] (helo=sasharissa.local) by smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1b2DwY-0002w4-G0; Mon, 16 May 2016 09:32:03 +0100 Message-ID: <573985BD.1060201@ninebynine.org> Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:33:01 +0100 From: Graham Klyne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?SnVsaWVuIMOJTElF?= , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , ietf-message-headers@ietf.org, usefor@ietf.org References: <573572C7.4020408@ninebynine.org> <9ea7e62b-9a21-1102-eb3e-e12b574b9e89@trigofacile.com> <573982D3.1090106@ninebynine.org> In-Reply-To: <573982D3.1090106@ninebynine.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Oxford-Username: zool0635 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [usefor] [Ietf-message-headers] Changes to netnews header registrations (correction) X-BeenThere: usefor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of usefor issues." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 08:32:07 -0000 On 16/05/2016 09:20, Graham Klyne wrote: > Hi Julien, > > Thanks for your update and confirmation of the affected fields. > > TL;DR: I don't propose to recommend the additional changes you suggest as I'm > not seeing that they really contribute to the purpose of the registry (cf. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-2.2.2). That link should have been https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-1. Sorry. #g -- > > > In slightly more detail, I offer the following reasons: > > 1. My rationale in suggesting the changes I did was to help keep the registry > reasonably aligned with the relevant IANA considerations RFC sections. The > additional headers you mention don't appear in the document IANA considerations. > > 2. With reference to the X-headers you mention, I see little point in adding > new, non-standard headers to the registry simply to indicate they are now > obsolete. (There could be a case for doing this if they are in widespread > use, but I think that should be a separate discussion, and a new RFC with its > own IANA considerations section. I suspect it's not worth the effort!) > > 3. The other headers you mention are not substantively changed by RFC 5536: > the restrictions noted are specifically with respect to the netnews protocol, > and as such are not really relevant to the registry purpose. > > 4. I did consider that "netnews" might be added to the protocol options for > the MIME-version and Content-* header fields you mention, but as they are > already registered as MIME headers that doesn't seem to serve any useful > purpose (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-2.2.2). > > #g > -- > > > On 13/05/2016 16:20, Julien ÉLIE wrote: >> Hi Graham, >> >> First of all, thanks for reviewing the request I sent. >> I add the USEFOR IETF WG in copy of this message, in case they wish to comment. >> >> >>> As reviewer for the IANA message headers registry >>> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml), >>> I've received a request to change references to rename >>> "[Son-of-1036]" references to "[RFC1849]"? This document is now >>> published as a historic RFC. >>> >>> I propose to make a recommendation that goes beyond the original >>> request, and as such I thought I should submit my proposed >>> recommendation to public review. >>> >>> I think the requested change is appropriate with respect to the >>> following message header fields: >>> >>> Also-control >>> Article-names >>> Article-updates >>> See-also >>> >>> (Did I miss any?) >> >> These are indeed the 4 message header fields obsoleted by RFC1849. >> >> >>> I also think that RFC5536 should be cited for these headers, as it is >>> this document that formally declared them to be obsolete >>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-6). >> >> Yes, RFC5536 can be cited instead of, or along with, RFC1849. >> >> >>> While we're at it, I'd suggest also citing RFC5536 for the following >>> header fields, also obsoleted by that document >>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-3.3 and #section-6): >>> >>> Date-Received netnews obsoleted [RFC0850] >>> Posting-Version netnews obsoleted [RFC0850] >>> Relay-Version netnews obsoleted [RFC0850] >>> NNTP-Posting-Date netnews obsoleted >>> NNTP-Posting-Host netnews obsoleted [RFC2980] >>> >>> If I hear no objection within a few days, I'll pass this recommendaton >>> to IANA. >> >> Couldn't X-Trace and X-Complaints-To header fields also be added to that list? >> >> X-Trace netnews obsoleted [RFC5536] >> X-Complaints-To netnews obsoleted [RFC5536] >> >> They are indeed mentioned at the same time as NNTP-Posting-Host in Section 3.2.8 >> of RFC5536, and are no longer useful with Injection-Info header field: >> >> NOTE: Some of this information has previously been sent in non- >> standardized header fields such as NNTP-Posting-Host, X-Trace, >> X-Complaints-To, and others. Once a news server generates an >> Injection-Info header field, it should have no need to send these >> non-standard header fields. >> >> >> >> >> While we're at it, couldn't MIME-related header fields also be added as standard >> for netnews? >> >> MIME-Version netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] >> Content-Type netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] >> Content-Transfer-Encoding netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] >> Content-Disposition netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] >> Content-Language netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] >> >> As a matter of fact, Section 3.2 of RFC5536 speaks of them, with added >> restrictions in syntax: >> >> None of the header fields appearing in this section are required to >> appear in every article, but some of them may be required in certain >> types of articles. Further discussion of these requirements appears >> in [RFC5537] and [USEAGE]. >> >> The header fields Comments, Keywords, Reply-To, and Sender are used >> in Netnews articles in the same circumstances and with the same >> meanings as those specified in [RFC5322], with the added restrictions >> detailed above in Section 2.2. Multiple occurrences of the Keywords >> header field are not permitted. >> >> comments = "Comments:" SP unstructured CRLF >> >> keywords = "Keywords:" SP phrase *("," phrase) CRLF >> >> reply-to = "Reply-To:" SP address-list CRLF >> >> sender = "Sender:" SP mailbox CRLF >> >> The MIME header fields MIME-Version, Content-Type, Content-Transfer- >> Encoding, Content-Disposition, and Content-Language are used in >> Netnews articles in the same circumstances and with the same meanings >> as those specified in [RFC2045], [RFC2183], and [RFC3282], with the >> added restrictions detailed above in Section 2.2. >> >> >> Thanks, >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-message-headers mailing list > Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers > From nobody Mon May 16 08:57:13 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 446C212D704 for ; Mon, 16 May 2016 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N2GRwZTRcqVx for ; Mon, 16 May 2016 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp04.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.126]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EA3612D70C for ; Mon, 16 May 2016 08:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home ([92.170.5.52]) by mwinf5d07 with ME id v3x01s00G17Lgi4033x1uj; Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:04 +0200 X-ME-Helo: macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home X-ME-Auth: anVsaWVuLmVsaWVAd2FuYWRvby5mcg== X-ME-Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:04 +0200 X-ME-IP: 92.170.5.52 To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , ietf-message-headers@ietf.org, usefor@ietf.org References: <573572C7.4020408@ninebynine.org> <9ea7e62b-9a21-1102-eb3e-e12b574b9e89@trigofacile.com> <573982D3.1090106@ninebynine.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_=c3=89LIE?= Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/ Message-ID: <44513b01-a7fa-5db7-2461-d703ff9ddb9d@trigofacile.com> Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:00 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <573982D3.1090106@ninebynine.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: Graham Klyne Subject: Re: [usefor] Changes to netnews header registrations X-BeenThere: usefor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of usefor issues." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 15:57:10 -0000 Hi Graham, > TL;DR: I don't propose to recommend the additional changes you suggest > as I'm not seeing that they really contribute to the purpose of the > registry (cf. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-2.2.2). OK, Content-* header fields used by netnews are not supposed to be registered. Yet, is it the same for MIME-Version, that is not mentioned in neither Section 1 nor Section 2.2.2 of RFC3864? > 2. With reference to the X-headers you mention, I see little point in > adding new, non-standard headers to the registry simply to indicate they > are now obsolete. (There could be a case for doing this if they are in > widespread use, but I think that should be a separate discussion, and a > new RFC with its own IANA considerations section. I suspect it's not > worth the effort!) It depends on when we can say a header field is "wide-spread". I've just had a look in two newsgroups: * last 1043 messages (roughly October 2014-May 2016) in news.software.nntp: 391 (37%) contain X-Trace 216 (21%) contain X-Complaints-To * last 1437 messages (roughly August 2014-May 2016) in soc.culture.french: 612 (43%) contain X-Trace 97 (7%) contain X-Complaints-To Of course wider stats should be done because the generation of these headers depend on the news servers the users connect to. X-Trace seems in wide-spread use, though. I agree that writing a new RFC to just obsolete it is probably not worth the effort. However, maybe X-Trace (and maybe other headers) could be added in IANA considerations section of an update of RFC 5536 if we ever move it to Draft Standard? -- Julien ÉLIE « La différence entre un chanteur et une paire de chaussures est que le chanteur doit partir avant de lasser. La paire de chaussures, il vaut mieux les lacer avant de partir. » (Philippe Geluck) From nobody Tue May 17 01:50:09 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E500512B050; Tue, 17 May 2016 01:50:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JlVshQbrsxCx; Tue, 17 May 2016 01:50:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44F8E12B058; Tue, 17 May 2016 01:50:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp5.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.207]) by relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1b2ahW-0000Mm-oh; Tue, 17 May 2016 09:50:02 +0100 Received: from client-8-49.eduroam.oxuni.org.uk ([192.76.8.49] helo=sasharissa.local) by smtp5.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1b2ahW-0007NG-I1; Tue, 17 May 2016 09:50:02 +0100 Message-ID: <573ADB7B.4060306@ninebynine.org> Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 09:51:07 +0100 From: Graham Klyne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?SnVsaWVuIMOJTElF?= References: <573572C7.4020408@ninebynine.org> <9ea7e62b-9a21-1102-eb3e-e12b574b9e89@trigofacile.com> <573982D3.1090106@ninebynine.org> <44513b01-a7fa-5db7-2461-d703ff9ddb9d@trigofacile.com> In-Reply-To: <44513b01-a7fa-5db7-2461-d703ff9ddb9d@trigofacile.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Oxford-Username: zool0635 Archived-At: Cc: usefor@ietf.org, ietf-message-headers@ietf.org Subject: Re: [usefor] [apps-discuss] Changes to netnews header registrations X-BeenThere: usefor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of usefor issues." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 08:50:07 -0000 (Trimming cc's) On 16/05/2016 16:57, Julien ÉLIE wrote: > Hi Graham, > >> TL;DR: I don't propose to recommend the additional changes you suggest >> as I'm not seeing that they really contribute to the purpose of the >> registry (cf. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-2.2.2). > > OK, Content-* header fields used by netnews are not supposed to be registered. > Yet, is it the same for MIME-Version, that is not mentioned in neither Section 1 > nor Section 2.2.2 of RFC3864? I believe so: "MIME-Version" is registered as a "MIME" header field in the registry. > > > >> 2. With reference to the X-headers you mention, I see little point in >> adding new, non-standard headers to the registry simply to indicate they >> are now obsolete. (There could be a case for doing this if they are in >> widespread use, but I think that should be a separate discussion, and a >> new RFC with its own IANA considerations section. I suspect it's not >> worth the effort!) > > It depends on when we can say a header field is "wide-spread". > I've just had a look in two newsgroups: > > * last 1043 messages (roughly October 2014-May 2016) in news.software.nntp: > 391 (37%) contain X-Trace > 216 (21%) contain X-Complaints-To > > * last 1437 messages (roughly August 2014-May 2016) in soc.culture.french: > 612 (43%) contain X-Trace > 97 (7%) contain X-Complaints-To > > Of course wider stats should be done because the generation of these headers > depend on the news servers the users connect to. > > > X-Trace seems in wide-spread use, though. > I agree that writing a new RFC to just obsolete it is probably not worth the > effort. However, maybe X-Trace (and maybe other headers) could be added in IANA > considerations section of an update of RFC 5536 if we ever move it to Draft > Standard? > Sure. That would be subject to normal IETF review. If it passed that, then (as registry reviewer) I would have no problem recommending its acceptance. #g -- From nobody Sun May 22 06:58:22 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF0212B01A for ; Sun, 22 May 2016 06:58:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GGrfGQKzeIaH for ; Sun, 22 May 2016 06:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp08.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 817E312B03D for ; Sun, 22 May 2016 06:58:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home ([92.170.5.52]) by mwinf5d16 with ME id xRyC1s00517Lgi403RyCSe; Sun, 22 May 2016 15:58:16 +0200 X-ME-Helo: macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home X-ME-Auth: anVsaWVuLmVsaWVAd2FuYWRvby5mcg== X-ME-Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 15:58:16 +0200 X-ME-IP: 92.170.5.52 To: usefor@ietf.org, ietf-message-headers@ietf.org References: <573572C7.4020408@ninebynine.org> <9ea7e62b-9a21-1102-eb3e-e12b574b9e89@trigofacile.com> <573982D3.1090106@ninebynine.org> <44513b01-a7fa-5db7-2461-d703ff9ddb9d@trigofacile.com> <573ADB7B.4060306@ninebynine.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_=c3=89LIE?= Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/ Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 15:58:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <573ADB7B.4060306@ninebynine.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: Graham Klyne Subject: Re: [usefor] [apps-discuss] Changes to netnews header registrations X-BeenThere: usefor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of usefor issues." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 13:58:21 -0000 Hi Graham, >> OK, Content-* header fields used by netnews are not supposed to be >> registered. Yet, is it the same for MIME-Version, that is not >> mentioned in neither Section 1 nor Section 2.2.2 of RFC3864? > > I believe so: "MIME-Version" is registered as a "MIME" header field in > the registry. OK, I was a bit confused by the existence of "http" and "mail" protocols related to Content-* headers or MIME-Version in the registry. Incidentally, RFC4021 marks Content-Identifier and Content-Return obsolete for the mail protocol (see Sections 2.1.42 and 2.1.47 of RFC4021). Shouldn't the registry reflect that status? Same thing for Encrypted, Obsoletes and Expiry-Date headers fields, marked as obsolete. Maybe a pass on IANA Considerations of RFC4021 should be done to make sure everything is correctly marked in the registry? >> maybe X-Trace (and maybe other headers) could be added in IANA >> considerations section of an update of RFC 5536 if we ever move it >> to Draft Standard? > > Sure. That would be subject to normal IETF review. If it passed that, > then (as registry reviewer) I would have no problem recommending its > acceptance. I'm fine with that. Thanks, Graham. (If other people in the USEFOR mailing-list have another opinion, do not hesitate to tell.) -- Julien ÉLIE « – Ce n'était pas ma question. – C'était p'têt pas vot'question, oui, mais c'est ma réponse ! » (Georges Marchais répondant à Alain Duhamel)