From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 3 12:16:41 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14685 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:16:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j03HDAmd037244 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j03HDA3c037241 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-2.gradwell.net (lon-mail-2.gradwell.net [193.111.201.126]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j03HD0Xi037202 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-66-214.midband.mdip.bt.net ([81.144.66.214]) by lon-mail-2.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.163) id 41d97d1a.2659.23 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:12:58 +0000 (envelope-sender ) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j03HCV411615 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:12:31 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20545 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:15:24 GMT Lines: 49 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> the _real_ format, if there is such a thing, is totally >> irrelevant, provided that it is at least permitted. >For our discussion about the news URL I read some stuff in > >2396bis uses this syntax: >| IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture ) "]" >| IPvFuture = "v" 1*HEXDIG "." 1*( unreserved / sub-delims / ":" ) >For IPv6 there's a pointer to RfC 3513 and the complete fun. >There's no pointer for IPv4 (so probably the only existing >form is 2821, and 2396bis couldn't use it for several reasons). All the world and his dog are giving a conflicting syntax for , and I do not think we want to get involved. Just leave it as RFC 2822 has it, with only the essentual technical changes. Will lead to much less aggro when the time for RFC 2822bis comes. >BTW, you already gave the reason for id-right, you couldn't use >the right part of addr-spec (= domain) in RfC 2822 because that >allows CFWS. Therefore you invented id-left and id-right, only >a hack to get addr-spec minus any CFWS. No, I didn't invent id-left and id-right. RFC 2822 did that. >You can't say that the right part of an addr-spec supports SSNs, >URLs, ISBNs, or other nonsense in square brackets. It's either >a dot-atom-text or an address literal, nothing else. On the contrary, RFC 2822 allows all of those things in the part of an (and hence so does our draft). So it would be entriely wrong fo forbid them in an . -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 3 13:05:02 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14683 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:16:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j03HDAUs037245 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j03HDArR037242 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-2.gradwell.net (lon-mail-2.gradwell.net [193.111.201.126]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j03HD0FT037186 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-66-214.midband.mdip.bt.net ([81.144.66.214]) by lon-mail-2.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.163) id 41d97d15.2659.22 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:12:53 +0000 (envelope-sender ) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j03HCT511599 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:12:29 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20543 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Archive Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C9AFEB.4050902@isode.com> <20041222230155.GA1758@roxel.fqdn.de> <41D34D01.33FD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:37:22 GMT Lines: 46 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >No, I still don't like the filename parameter. You said that >the purposes is (quote) "its possible future use, and also to >allow future extensions to add further parameters". >RfC 3834 found a solution for the latter. RFC 3834 found exactly the same solution that we are proposing for Archive and Injction-Info. Yes, the present wording in USEFOR is not clear and needs more work, and maybe RFC 3834 will provide some suitable wording. So I don't really see what point you are trying to make, or what you find wrong with my words "future use, and also to allow future extensions to add further parameters". > You could copy its >opt-parameter-list + explanation to Archive and Injection-Info >if you like it. Not the token, and maybe you could manage to >just forget the phrase "(as amended by [N4.RFC2231])", please ? But no, I don't think we can drop the mention of RFC 2231 altogether, though I have no problem with some wording to point out that its use (well, at least the multi-line bit) within Netnews is neither necessary nor desirable. >RfC 2231 is firmly on place three (after RfC 3865 and ISO 3166) >of my shit list. MIME was a piece of art, what they did to it >in RfC 2231 is a crime. Indeed. Dittor RFC 2047, for that matter. >Some minutes later, maybe also the token ? I could then write >Archive: creativecommons.org_licenses_by-nc-sa_2.0_de Eh? -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 3 13:05:03 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14684 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:16:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j03HDAuu037243 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j03HDAWc037240 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-2.gradwell.net (lon-mail-2.gradwell.net [193.111.201.126]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j03HD8Cf037222 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-66-214.midband.mdip.bt.net ([81.144.66.214]) by lon-mail-2.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.163) id 41d97d26.2659.24 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:13:10 +0000 (envelope-sender ) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j03HCVv11611 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:12:31 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20544 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: FWS problem Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41AFCB04.4BC1@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41BD7D35.7239@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41BF26EF.33A2@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41C2B9FA.4A6B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41C77B78.6EBD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CAC8D6.1D57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D373A4.5E28@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D593A7.5D5F@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:07:03 GMT Lines: 84 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41D593A7.5D5F@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> only because of loud protests by the server implementors that >> we agreed to make exceptions for the Newsgroups and Path >> headers, etc, but only on account of the performance hits. >Supersedes: is relevant for news servers, like Control:, where >you also have only three [FWS] or in the fixed variant two *WSP >and still one [FWS] in control-message. No [CFWS] in Control: No, [CFWS] should appear as normal in the Control header. That is a mistake in USEFOR (cf draft-13), because the WG never asked for comments to be disallowed in Control (the performance-hit argument would clearly not apply). >IMHO you should get rid of your special USEFOR msg-id, there's >exactly one line where you use it: >| message-id = "Message-ID:" SP msg-id CRLF >For Lines: you could say that it's now deprecated and the old >syntax was Lines = "Lines:" SP *WSP 1*DIGIT *WSP CRLF >That's no lie, and if somebody tries new tricks with deprecated >headers, then old software might fail for Lines: (huge)9999(!) >> If there is something you want to forbid in a standard (such >> as empty header lines, etc), then it is an exceedingly Bad >> Idea to have two mechanisms for forbidding it >Then let's use your CWSP and WSPC trick. It's a worse idea to >say something as a MUST in the text and then something else in >the syntax. The [FWS] problem is already solved for 7+2 cases, >or 7+1 cases if you insist on Lines: (over)999(lines) >Only 5 (or 6) similar [CFWS] cases, all solved by your idea: >| WSPC = *WSP [ comment [CFWS] ] >Replace all (5 or 6) "leading" (near colon) [CFWS] by WSPC. >| CWSP = [ [CFWS] comment ] *WSP >Dito 5 or 6 "trailing" [CFWS] => CWSP (near CRLF), ready. >For our most critical example of the References: I get >| references = "References:" SP msg-id-list CRLF >| msg-id-list = CWSP msg-id-core *( CFWS msg-id-core ) WSPC >That's a variant enforcing at least either a comment or a WSP >between msg-ids, it allows (x)(a)(u)(e) and > , but not adjacent . The RfC >2822 syntax is very similar: >| references = "References:" 1*msg-id CRLF >| msg-id = [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" [CFWS] >You don't use it, because msg-id one of these overloaded terms: >| msg-id = [FWS] msg-id-core [FWS] >Why not simply delete the special msg-id, and use msg-id-core ? > message-id = "Message-ID:" SP *WSP msg-id-core *WSP CRLF You may have a point there, but there is the problem that we use all over the place in the semantics, and most of those now need to be . So probably better to s/msg-id-core/msg-id/ throughout, and give the necessary [CFWS], CFWS or [FWS] explicitly in the syntax in the relevant headers. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 3 19:03:34 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07608 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 19:03:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04018gM070957 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:01:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j04018l4070956 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:01:08 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04016lI070834 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:01:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Clc8H-0002bA-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 01:01:05 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.228 ([212.82.251.228]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 01:01:04 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.228 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 01:01:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Archive Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:56:38 +0100 Organization: Lines: 28 Message-ID: <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C9AFEB.4050902@isode.com> <20041222230155.GA1758@roxel.fqdn.de> <41D34D01.33FD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.228 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Archive: creativecommons.org_licenses_by-nc-sa_2.0_de Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > I don't really see what point you are trying to make, or what > you find wrong with my words "future use, and also to allow > future extensions to add further parameters". You say: We need filename for further parameters. I say: No, opt-parameter-list could do this trick without a filename. The point is that I'm against the filename, and maybe Bruce also doesn't like it: and (6.) >> maybe also the token ? I could then write >> Archive: creativecommons.org_licenses_by-nc-sa_2.0_de > Eh? A MIME token can't be an URL, therefore I replaced / by _ in and (ab)used the result as "copyright notice" instead of the token "No" in Archive: No That's what users normally expect if they use X-NoArchive: Yes Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 3 21:16:29 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA17022 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:16:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j042EKhF070033 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:14:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j042EKvl070024 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:14:20 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from gundel.de.clara.net (gundel.de.clara.net [212.82.225.86]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j042EHpN069980 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:14:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de) Received: from [212.82.251.228] (helo=xyzzy) by gundel.de.clara.net with smtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1CleQ3-00026k-U1 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 03:27:36 +0100 Message-ID: <41D9FBED.7C12@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 03:14:05 +0100 From: Frank Ellermann Organization: X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: FWS problem References: <41AFCB04.4BC1@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41BD7D35.7239@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41BF26EF.33A2@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41C2B9FA.4A6B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41C77B78.6EBD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CAC8D6.1D57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D373A4.5E28@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D593A7.5D5F@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > [CFWS] should appear as normal in the Control header. That is > a mistake in USEFOR (cf draft-13), because the WG never asked > for comments to be disallowed in Control (the performance-hit > argument would clearly not apply). Control: cancel / Supersedes; are common cases, and if an implementation has a problem with [CFWS] in an ordinary Message-ID: then why are Control: cancel / Supersedes: less critical ? BTW, s-o-1036 allows a msg-id-list in Control: cancel, but you stick to 1036 allowing only one msg-id, is this what you want ? [remove the single instance of "msg-id"] > You may have a point there, but there is the problem that we > use all over the place in the semantics, and most of > those now need to be . So probably better to > s/msg-id-core/msg-id/ throughout, and give the necessary > [CFWS], CFWS or [FWS] explicitly in the syntax in the > relevant headers. Yes, that's a good idea. Normally I hate it when you redefine a 2822 term instead of introducing a new term, but in this case it's a feature: Your msg-id = msg-id-core is in fact the real thing, and we want it to replace msg-id also in 2822 (of course without explicitly saying so ;-) Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 4 12:14:41 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27353 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:14:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04HCuA3097163 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:12:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j04HCuvh097162 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:12:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-2.gradwell.net (lon-mail-2.gradwell.net [193.111.201.126]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04HCpOO097127 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:12:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-65-14.midband.mdip.bt.net ([81.144.65.14]) by lon-mail-2.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.164) id 41dace8f.23b2.4e for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:12:47 +0000 (envelope-sender ) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j04HCSt21969 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:12:28 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20550 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: FWS problem Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41AFCB04.4BC1@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41BD7D35.7239@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41BF26EF.33A2@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41C2B9FA.4A6B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41C77B78.6EBD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CAC8D6.1D57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D373A4.5E28@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D593A7.5D5F@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D9FBED.7C12@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:37:07 GMT Lines: 47 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41D9FBED.7C12@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> [CFWS] should appear as normal in the Control header. That is >> a mistake in USEFOR (cf draft-13), because the WG never asked >> for comments to be disallowed in Control (the performance-hit >> argument would clearly not apply). >Control: cancel / Supersedes; >are common cases, and if an implementation has a problem with >[CFWS] in an ordinary Message-ID: then why are >Control: cancel / Supersedes: less critical ? The problem is not with [CFWS] surrounding a as such, but with transit servers which need to extract the Message-ID header from _every_ message passing through them, and for which ignoring any comment that might be present would be a significant performance hit. That just is not true of the Control and Supersedes headers, which are only of interest to serving agents and which, when detected, are hived off to a separate piece of code which can deconstruct them at leisure (since they form only a small proportion of the overall article count). Note that there is still a generic "SHOULD NOT generate yet" for all comments in News headers that were not known in the days of 1036, but to be fully compliant software MUST eventually be able to accept and ignore them, since they are a general property of _all_ headers. The only exceptions are the few that would slow down those transit servers too much, where we have agreed a permanent ban on them. >BTW, s-o-1036 allows a msg-id-list in Control: cancel, but you >stick to 1036 allowing only one msg-id, is this what you want ? That was a quirk of s-o-1036 and of CNews which was not implemented anywhere else. The WG discussed and rejected the idea I don't know how many years ago. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 4 12:14:54 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27384 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:14:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04HCkpN097134 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:12:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j04HCk5R097133 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:12:46 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j04HCjum097117 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:12:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-65-14.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.65.14 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2005 17:12:26 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j04CCK119519 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:12:20 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20549 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Archive Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C9AFEB.4050902@isode.com> <20041222230155.GA1758@roxel.fqdn.de> <41D34D01.33FD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:03:55 GMT Lines: 56 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> I don't really see what point you are trying to make, or what >> you find wrong with my words "future use, and also to allow >> future extensions to add further parameters". >You say: We need filename for further parameters. I say: No, >opt-parameter-list could do this trick without a filename. The >point is that I'm against the filename, and maybe Bruce also >doesn't like it: Ah! So you want the Archive header to have provision for a list of MIME-style parameters (just like we originally intended for all the news headers), but with no specific parameters defined just yet. Then the filename parameter can be added later if/when there is a specific need for it. Anyone else happy with that arrangement? I see no problem. > and > (6.) >>> maybe also the token ? I could then write >>> Archive: creativecommons.org_licenses_by-nc-sa_2.0_de >> Eh? >A MIME token can't be an URL, therefore I replaced / by _ in > and >(ab)used the result as "copyright notice" instead of the token >"No" in Archive: No But why would you want a URL as a token? Tokens are keywords to introduce parameters, as in some-token = "some value" There is no reason at all why a URL should not appear in the value part of a parameter, though is would usually have to be quoted. I think what you were trying to achieve would be more like: Archive: yes; copyright-restriction="" -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 4 14:00:48 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08229 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:00:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04IxIce004505 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:59:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j04IxIsS004504 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:59:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04IxGw0004441 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:59:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Clttn-0005WJ-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:59:19 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.78 ([212.82.251.78]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:59:19 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.78 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:59:19 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:54:33 +0100 Organization: Lines: 104 Message-ID: <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.78 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > All the world and his dog are giving a conflicting syntax for > , and I do not think we want to get involved. The quoted 2396bis text was about IPvFuture. That's a superset of IPv6 and IPv4 address literals. 2396bis also has the "real" IPv6 address literals, it's the same as in 3513 and 2373. Of course we don't want to get involved. We only need the set of legal characters between "". And somebody already solved this problem for us in 2396bis, the solution is perfect for our purposes, no ambiguous quoted-pairs, no DQUOTE, no ">", no "]", no "[". It's much better than 2822, because we can't use 2822. > Just leave it as RFC 2822 has it, with only the essentual > technical changes. Your rules to get rid of ambiguous quoted-pairs are not simple enough. It starts with the wrong terms: "id-right" is defined in 2822, if we must have something else, then it should be as in 1036 and its son a "domain". But 2822 has its own "domain", therefore let's take "mdomain". Dito a 2822 "no-fold-literal" is not good enough for us, let's use "address-literal", result: | msg-id-core = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" | mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") Now all we need is an enumeration of legal characters in this address-literal: | address-literal = 1*( atext / "." / ":" / | "," / ";" / "(" / ")" ) That's already more than 2396bis allows for _future_ literals, because they can't have "@", "#", "/", "?", and "%". atext + 6 is 87, 128 - 34 is 94, 7 char.s are still bad in this version and 2396bis: DQUOTE, "\", "[", "]", "<", ">", "@". You want 90 legal characters adding DQUOTE, "@", and "<", plus three quoted-pairs "\[", "\]", and "\\". Still excluding ">". IMHO "\" (in quoted-pairs) and DQUOTE are very bad ideas, and if ">" must be excluded then a remaining "<" is rather useless. So for this round of the bargain I offer "@", as long as there is at least one "@" for the news URL I don't care about any further "@" in future address literals. It's of course utter dubious in the "authority" part of an URI, therefore 2396bis doesn't allow it. But we're talking about Message-IDs. > much less aggro when the time for RFC 2822bis comes. If we're unable to agree on a concept for Message-IDs in news, then nobody else can do in a hypothetical 2822bis. It's the one thing where net news is the final authority, not RfC 2822. > I didn't invent id-left and id-right. RFC 2822 did that. The collective "you" as stated in the credits of RfC 2822 did this, the explanation is even mentioned in the text: | Since the msg-id has a similar syntax to angle-addr | (identical except that comments and folding white space are | not allowed), a good method is to put the domain name (or a | domain literal IP address) of the host on which the message | identifier was created on the right hand side of the "@" [...] | Though other algorithms will work, it is RECOMMENDED that the | right hand side contain some domain identifier (either of the | host itself or otherwise) such that the generator of the | message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness of the left | hand side within the scope of that domain. The SHOULD in 2822 and mail is a MUST in news. In net news the Message-ID is _essential_ for interoperability, and if somebody has a cute idea to do something else he will go through the pains of writing his own IESG approved amendment to 1036, its son, and its grandson. >> You can't say that the right part of an addr-spec supports >> SSNs, URLs, ISBNs, or other nonsense in square brackets. >> It's either a dot-atom-text or an address literal, nothing >> else. > On the contrary, RFC 2822 allows all of those things in the > part of an RfC 2822 is irrelevant for Message-IDs, proven by the cases of ambiguous quoted-pairs and illegal NO-WS-CTL. Now let's do it right, that's the very minimum a future 2822bis author expects from a net news standard, they (= we) should know Message-IDs. > it would be entriely wrong fo forbid them in an . That's not the case. The RHS of a Message-ID is a domain as stated in 1036 and s-o-1036, anything else is wrong, address literals are already a huge concession. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 4 14:16:45 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09416 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:16:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04JFN6q023892 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:15:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j04JFNEg023891 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:15:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04JFLP6023863 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:15:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Clu9N-0006gv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:15:25 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.78 ([212.82.251.78]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:15:24 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.78 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:15:24 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Archive Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:14:40 +0100 Organization: Lines: 11 Message-ID: <41DAEB20.4F0F@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C9AFEB.4050902@isode.com> <20041222230155.GA1758@roxel.fqdn.de> <41D34D01.33FD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.78 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > Archive: yes; copyright-restriction="" Yes, that's better, or maybe Archive: no; permission=... I used X-NoArchive: yes when deja.news was really new for some time, but today I'm lost. Generally I've no problem with news archives, quite the contrary. I hate it if commercial sites (ab)use newsgroups as support forum. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 5 12:15:27 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22804 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:15:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j05HChdW012589 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:12:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j05HCh59012587 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:12:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.196]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j05HCgVu012459 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:12:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-77-251.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.77.251 with poptime) by smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jan 2005 17:12:29 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j05HCDx07056 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:12:13 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20553 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:04:43 GMT Lines: 54 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >| msg-id-core = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" >| mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") I am still waiting for a ruling from our Chair as to whether we can make further changes to the RFC 2822 that are not required by some absolute technical necessity. And it would be nice to hear also from other WG members as to whether they approve of these further changes that you are suggesting. >If we're unable to agree on a concept for Message-IDs in news, >then nobody else can do in a hypothetical 2822bis. It's the >one thing where net news is the final authority, not RfC 2822. What you say may be highly desirable, but the practical politics just does not work like that. >| Since the msg-id has a similar syntax to angle-addr >| (identical except that comments and folding white space are >| not allowed), a good method is to put the domain name (or a >| domain literal IP address) of the host on which the message >| identifier was created on the right hand side of the "@" >[...] >| Though other algorithms will work, it is RECOMMENDED that the >| right hand side contain some domain identifier (either of the >| host itself or otherwise) such that the generator of the >| message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness of the left >| hand side within the scope of that domain. >The SHOULD in 2822 and mail is a MUST in news. No, it is NOT a "MUST" in news. It is exactly the same as in RFC 2822, namely it MUST be globally unique, and you can do that however you like, but here is a RECOMMENDED method. And, as is well known, Agent does not do it, either for mail or for news. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Jan 6 11:15:44 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19597 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:15:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j06GDjYZ079039 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 08:13:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j06GDjkK079038 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 08:13:45 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j06GDd6e078965 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 08:13:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CmaGV-00035u-00 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:13:35 +0100 Received: from c-134-89-53.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.89.53]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:13:35 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-89-53.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:13:35 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:09:44 +0100 Organization: Lines: 99 Message-ID: <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-89-53.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: >>| msg-id-core = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" >>| mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") > I am still waiting for a ruling from our Chair as to whether > we can make further changes to the RFC 2822 The quoted part is already okay, only different names instead of a redefined id-left / id-right / no-fold-literal. Whatever the "political" difficulties might be, using RfC 2822 names for a different USEFOR syntax would be too confusing. > What you say may be highly desirable Actually I don't like "(" and ")" within address-literals, but the 2396bis IPvFuture allows it, and IPvFuture is better than the 2821 General-Address-Literal with its 2822 NO-WS-CTL... :-( > the practical politics just does not work like that. I'm interested what "practical IETF politics" has to say about hypothetical future address literals in two conflicting syntax versions, and their appearance in today's Message-IDs. Now that you insist on Alexey's crystal ball we should actually ask for address-literal = atext / "." / ":". Let the inventors of IPvFuture decide what they want when they start their future work, it's not our business. We know that we don't want NO-WS-CTL, redundant quoted-pairs, or ">". atext / "." / ":" are good enough for IPv4 and IPv6. Among the potential problems avoided by atext / "." / ":" are - no ">" and NO-WS-CTL, excluding "<" is only consequent - no "\" and quoted-pairs, automatically canonical for NNTP - "[" and "]" are clear, no problem with "\[", "\[", "\\" - no "(" and no ")", no possible confusion with comments - no ";", broken parsers looking for MIME parameters survive - no DQUOTE, broken parsers looking for quoted strings within address literals survive (it's also not allowed in 2396bis) - no "@", good for the news URL, also not allowed in 2396bis Char.s in this syntax but not in 2396bis [1]: "%" / "#" / "?" / "/" / "{" / "|" / "}" / "^" / "`" Char.s in 2396bis but not in this syntax [2]: "," / ";" / "(" / ")" Char.s in your no-fold-literal but not in this syntax: "," / ";" / "(" / ")" / "<" / "@" / DQUOTE / "\\" / "\[" / "\]" Char.s in your no-fold-literal but not in 2396bis: "%" / "#" / "?" / "/" / "{" / "|" / "}" / "^" / "`" / "<" / "@" / DQUOTE / "\\" / "\[" / "\]" [1]: IPvFuture has no "{" / "|" / "}" / "^" / "`" I have no idea why, these characters aren't mentioned in 2396bis (?) [2]: No convincing reason why my syntax excludes "," (comma) [RHS of Message-IDs is a domain or domain-literal] >> The SHOULD in 2822 and mail is a MUST in news. > No, it is NOT a "MUST" in news. It is exactly the same as in > RFC 2822, namely it MUST be globally unique, and you can do > that however you like, but here is a RECOMMENDED method. Your versions of 1036 and s-o-1036 are very different from my versions, I have full_domain_name (1036) and domain (s-o-1036). I have no objection if you insist on adding domain literals (in the form of address literals, no CFWS etc.) to this concept. But I strongly disagree with adding "whatever you like as RHS". If 2822 wanted SSNs, URLs, ISBNs, and other stuff - and I doubt this - then it's wrong. We have one RHS concept that's well understood, the domain. Anything else is untested and could cause major trouble. If you want say URNs as RHS of Message-IDs please do so in an experimental RfC, but not in the "grandson" of a memo clearly saying full_domain_name. With a domain the authority for all created Message-IDs is clear. With an URN as RHS I've no idea what to do if two systems create identical Message-IDs claiming that the other system abuses their namespace. Who is the owner of an URN ? > as is well known, Agent does not do it, either for mail or > for news. This software uses a dot-atom-text in the form of a domain, and to find the relevant authority I need nothing more exotic than DNS or maybe whois. It certainly doesn't use address literals, let alone URNs or avian carrier licenses in square brackets. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 7 12:15:59 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28891 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:15:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j07HCmYK001431 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:12:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j07HCmUa001430 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:12:48 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j07HClLY001099 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:12:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-70-176.midband.mdip.bt.net ([81.144.70.176]) by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.165) id 41dec304.4122.38 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:12:36 +0000 (envelope-sender ) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j07HCDM25310 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:12:13 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20555 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:19:14 GMT Lines: 80 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: > >>>| msg-id-core = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" >>>| mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") > >> I am still waiting for a ruling from our Chair as to whether >> we can make further changes to the RFC 2822 >The quoted part is already okay, only different names instead >of a redefined id-left / id-right / no-fold-literal. Whatever >the "political" difficulties might be, using RfC 2822 names for >a different USEFOR syntax would be too confusing. Not so. We have used it for (because it applies everywhere that RFC 2822 uses ). You agreed yesterday we should define our own rather than the ugly , even though it isn't an exact plugin replacement. On the same grounds, it is proper to use and with our more restricted syntax (because they _are_ plugin replacements). >> What you say may be highly desirable >Actually I don't like "(" and ")" within address-literals, but >the 2396bis IPvFuture allows it, and IPvFuture is better than >the 2821 General-Address-Literal with its 2822 NO-WS-CTL... :-( But we have agreed to chop out the NO-WS-CTL, because it conflicts with NNTP. >> the practical politics just does not work like that. >I'm interested what "practical IETF politics" has to say about >hypothetical future address literals in two conflicting syntax >versions, and their appearance in today's Message-IDs. That's not our problem. Currently we encompass (modulo NO-WS-CTL and quoted-pair differnences) all known versions. >Now that you insist on Alexey's crystal ball we should actually >ask for address-literal = atext / "." / ":". Let the inventors >of IPvFuture decide what they want when they start their future >work, it's not our business. That's just adding a third conflicting syntax, which helps nobody. > [RHS of Message-IDs is a domain or domain-literal] >>> The SHOULD in 2822 and mail is a MUST in news. >> No, it is NOT a "MUST" in news. It is exactly the same as in >> RFC 2822, namely it MUST be globally unique, and you can do >> that however you like, but here is a RECOMMENDED method. >Your versions of 1036 and s-o-1036 are very different from my >versions, I have full_domain_name (1036) and domain (s-o-1036). Neither of which allows IP addresses at all, and yet they are commonly used. >I have no objection if you insist on adding domain literals (in >the form of address literals, no CFWS etc.) to this concept. >But I strongly disagree with adding "whatever you like as RHS". Our remit is to follow RFC 2822 wherever possible, which means their version if . If you want to do something different than that, then it is our Chair that you have to convince, not me. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 11 14:13:30 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17528 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:13:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0BJA2CL049801 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:10:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0BJA2Nx049800 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:10:02 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0BJ9vpX049765 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:09:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CoROy-0005aU-00 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:10:00 +0100 Received: from a077202.dialin.hansenet.de ([213.191.77.202]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:10:00 +0100 Received: from nobody by a077202.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:10:00 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:02:44 +0100 Organization: Lines: 120 Message-ID: <41E422D3.5FA6@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: a077202.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: [ vs. ] > You agreed yesterday we should define our own rather > than the ugly , even though it isn't an exact > plugin replacement. Yes, as an exception. What we really want there is to _update_ the existing 2822 msg-id syntax (without explicitly saying so). But 2822 id-left, id-right, and no-fold-literal are different, we want to _replace_ them completely by the original (1036 and 2822 addr-spec) concepts unique, mdomain, and address-literal. > On the same grounds, it is proper to use and > with our more restricted syntax (because they > _are_ plugin replacements). That would obscure the 1036 and 2822 semantics "like addr-spec, only unique and no CFWS": | the msg-id has a similar syntax to angle-addr (identical | except that comments and folding white space are not | allowed) That's a quote from 2822, they really wanted to get this right. Somewhere in the mazes of CFWS, obs-id-left, and obs-id-right they dropped the ball and invented the new names id-left and id-right. The "real" idea of a msg-id is and not some arbitrary . > we have agreed to chop out the NO-WS-CTL, because it > conflicts with NNTP. Yes, and for the same reason we agreed to remove all redundant (unnecessary) quoted strings and quoted-pairs, and to guarantee unambiguous (canonical) Message-IDs w.r.t. the LHS (= unique). We're also ready for a normal FQDN as RHS, because that's the same dot-atom-text (minus obs-id-right = domain) as in 2822. We're not yet ready with the remaining case of a domain literal as RHS. You want an anonymous "no-fold-literal" (same name as in 2822, but a different syntax), I prefer "address-literal" (syntax and name different from 2822, but identical semantics). Now please correct me if I got this wrong, but apparently you want a new semantics with a new syntax and the old 2822 name, essentially "anything in square brackets minus >, [, ], and \ goes, adding \[, \], and \\". URN, SSN, ICBM, IPv4, or IPv6, anything in square brackets is possible, as long as the result together with the LHS and "@" is a unique string. I want the 2822 semantics with a new syntax and an obvious name address-literal. IPv4, IPv6, or IPvX are fine. But URNs, SSNs, or other stuff in square brackets won't do as RHS of a msg-id. That would be a major difference. No wonder that we don't find the same syntax for this beast. >> ask for address-literal = atext / "." / ":" >> Let the inventors of IPvFuture decide what they want when >> they start their future work, it's not our business. > That's just adding a third conflicting syntax, which helps > nobody. There will be _four_ versions whatever you do: 2821, 2822, and 2396bis plus either your no-fold-literal (not the same as 2822) or one of my address-literal proposals (2822 semantics). The address-literal = atext / "." / ":" is the minimum to get away with, your syntax is the maximum. >> Your versions of 1036 and s-o-1036 are very different from >> my versions, I have full_domain_name (1036) and domain >> (s-o-1036). > Neither of which allows IP addresses at all, and yet they are > commonly used. 1036 mumbles something about 822: | In order to conform to RFC-822, the Message-ID must have the | format: 822 simply says (not in this order): | msg-id = "<" addr-spec ">" ; Unique message id | addr-spec = local-part "@" domain ; global address | domain = sub-domain *("." sub-domain) | sub-domain = domain-ref / domain-literal | domain-literal = "[" *(dtext / quoted-pair) "]" 1036 somehow managed to inherit the concept "domain-literal" from 822, and this 822 "domain-literal" is a close relative of the "no-fold-literal" in 2822. Minus the folding and other problems in 822. STD 11 (822) is also very clear about the meaning and the usage of domain literals, they are _not_ arbitrary stuff in square brackets. And they are exceptions, the normal case is what we know as FQDN. > it is our Chair that you have to convince, not me. First of all I want to convince you that we better stick to the STD 11 meaning of a domain-literal, even if it appears in an obscure place like the RHS of a msg-id. If we could agree on this part, then it's only consequent to use a clear name like address-literal for it instead of overloading no-fold-literal with your new syntax. And with a proper name it's obvious that we could use any new syntax not causing immediate problems with NNTP, IPv6, 2396bis, or the news URL. You found the maximal solution, I found the opposite, and if you'd call the result "address-literal", then the syntax isn't the most important issue. I'm much more interested in the meaning. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 12 07:14:28 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06088 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:14:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0CCCcFR083842 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:12:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0CCCcXv083837 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:12:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0CCCbhR083548 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:12:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-158.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.158 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Jan 2005 12:12:32 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0CCCEY06394 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:12:14 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20557 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E422D3.5FA6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:57:36 GMT Lines: 82 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41E422D3.5FA6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >But 2822 id-left, id-right, and no-fold-literal are different, >we want to _replace_ them completely by the original (1036 and >2822 addr-spec) concepts unique, mdomain, and address-literal. No we (tinw) don't. Maybe you do, but nobody else seems to want to, and I am not sure that our remit allows us to (ruling from the Chair still awaited). And please bear in mind that we would still have the possibility of those "funny" literals in s, as in From: foo@[b\[a\]r] which is still legal (though maybe nonsensical) in both RFC 2822 and in our draft. >Now please correct me if I got this wrong, but apparently you >want a new semantics with a new syntax and the old 2822 name, >essentially "anything in square brackets minus >, [, ], and \ >goes, adding \[, \], and \\". URN, SSN, ICBM, IPv4, or IPv6, >anything in square brackets is possible, as long as the result >together with the LHS and "@" is a unique string. No, I want a subset of the RFC 2822 syntax, with the same name and the same semantics, just like we did for (almost) and . >I want the 2822 semantics with a new syntax and an obvious name >address-literal. IPv4, IPv6, or IPvX are fine. But URNs, SSNs, >or other stuff in square brackets won't do as RHS of a msg-id. Why ever not? They are currently allowed (though maybe stupid) in the RHS of an and they are currently allowed (in RFC 2822) in the RHS of a . >1036 mumbles something about 822: >| In order to conform to RFC-822, the Message-ID must have the >| format: >822 simply says (not in this order): >| msg-id = "<" addr-spec ">" ; Unique message id >| addr-spec = local-part "@" domain ; global address >| domain = sub-domain *("." sub-domain) >| sub-domain = domain-ref / domain-literal >| domain-literal = "[" *(dtext / quoted-pair) "]" >1036 somehow managed to inherit the concept "domain-literal" >from 822, and this 822 "domain-literal" is a close relative of >the "no-fold-literal" in 2822. Minus the folding and other >problems in 822. >STD 11 (822) is also very clear about the meaning and the usage >of domain literals, they are _not_ arbitrary stuff in square >brackets. And they are exceptions, the normal case is what we >know as FQDN. I see nothing in RFC 822 which says that. AFAICS, RFC 822 allows URNs, SSNs and all other nonsense in , just like RFC 2822 does. >> it is our Chair that you have to convince, not me. >First of all I want to convince you that we better stick to the >STD 11 meaning of a domain-literal, even if it appears in an >obscure place like the RHS of a msg-id. AFAICS, we DO stick to the STD 11 meaning of a domain-literal. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Jan 13 17:49:54 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01449 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:49:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0DMlVJZ061735 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:47:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0DMlVHH061734 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:47:31 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from gundel.de.clara.net (gundel.de.clara.net [212.82.225.86]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0DMlTJR061717 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:47:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de) Received: from [212.82.251.146] (helo=xyzzy) by gundel.de.clara.net with smtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1CpDx1-0001Wk-M7 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:00:24 +0100 Message-ID: <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:24:17 +0100 From: Frank Ellermann Organization: X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: msg-id References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E422D3.5FA6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: >> 2822 id-left, id-right, and no-fold-literal are different, >> we want to _replace_ them completely by the original (1036 >> and 2822 addr-spec) concepts unique, mdomain, and >> address-literal. > No we (tinw) don't. Maybe you do Yes, I want based on 822, 1036, s-o-1036, and the msg-id semantics of 2822. BTW, we just got a new proposed standard with a completely different concept of unique IDs: Announced in today, it's based on unique MAC addresses and UTC timestamps (100 nano- second steps since Oct 15 1582) with provisions to use random numbers and / or parts of MD5 / SHA1 hashes where this doesn't work directly. Incl. ways to use an FQDN instead of a MAC address. Fascinating stuff, but less convincing than our - oops, "my" - concept of if two parties use one of the MAC surrogates and generate duplicates. With "my" concept it's at least clear who owns the name space (= RHS). > nobody else seems to want to Except from STD 11, 1036, and s-o-1036 maybe. Message-IDs are not really "my" idea. > (ruling from the Chair still awaited) Something is odd if you need "higher" authorities to define the essence of net news, i.e. Message-ID. I still think that's our job. Of course Alexej could help us (add tin[wuo] as needed) if we'd confuse Message-IDs with say message digests or UUIDs. The proposed UUID standard was checked by the A-D. > please bear in mind that we would still have the possibility > of those "funny" literals in s, as in > From: foo@[b\[a\]r] > which is still legal (though maybe nonsensical) in both RFC > 2822 and in our draft. Only syntactically legal, but it's a strictly invalid domain literal b[a]r No version of IP and no notation for IPs allows b[ar]r, what's it supposed to mean as either IPv4 or IPv6 ? If more than one system tries to create Message-IDs with RHS [b\[a\]r] they are lost. It's definitely illegal as the RHS of a From: mailbox in net news, the only allowed invalid RHS is something ending in "TLD" .invalid, as the name says. That important bit of information didn't make it from the last complete draft to the new split stuff, but it's clear in 2822 (3.6.2). IMNSHO you should add this explicitly to the split drafts: | The From-header contains the electronic address(es), and | possibly the full name, of the article's poster(s That's 1036, you already had a better version covering more than one mailbox and the TLD .invalid stuff, Who deleted this when and why from the new split drafts ? Back to your example, From: is illegal. Reason: | The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message, that | is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible | for the writing of the message. That's what 2822 says in section 3.6.2, and therefore it's also relevant for the split drafts. IMHO you can't do it with this inheritance trick. RfC 2822 doesn't allow TLD .invalid for an intentionally invalid mailbox. > I want a subset of the RFC 2822 syntax, with the same name > and the same semantics Okay, that should reduce our differences to the names and the proper subset of the syntax. But if that's so, why do you think that b[a]r is a "legal" domain literal ? It's illegal. >> I want the 2822 semantics with a new syntax and an obvious >> name address-literal. IPv4, IPv6, or IPvX are fine. But >> URNs, SSNs, or other stuff in square brackets won't do as >> RHS of a msg-id. > Why ever not? They are currently allowed (though maybe stupid) > in the RHS of an and they are currently allowed > (in RFC 2822) in the RHS of a . They are not allowed as RHS of addr-spec and msg-id, they are no valid domain literals. Nobody "owns" an IP b[a]r, you can't ask the owner when there are problems with these b[a]r constructs. You really want a new meaning for the RHS in the case of address literals, your idea is not the same as in all Internet standards. Let's take the stuff you found in an old draft, with hex. digits etc. My proposal atext / "." / ":" was obviously much too broad to avoid this confusion. > I see nothing in RFC 822 which says that. AFAICS, RFC 822 > allows URNs, SSNs and all other nonsense in , > just like RFC 2822 does. | An addr-spec is a specific Internet identifier that contains a | locally interpreted string followed by the at-sign character | ("@", ASCII value 64) followed by an Internet domain. [...] | In the domain-literal form, the domain is interpreted as the | literal Internet address of the particular host. In both | cases, how addressing is used and how messages are | transported to a particular host is covered in the mail | transport document [RFC2821]. These mechanisms are outside | of the scope of this document. Without looking I'm absolutely sure that RfC 2821 or STD 10 have no idea how to transport a message from or to a UUID, SSN, URN, or what else. > AFAICS, we DO stick to the STD 11 meaning of a domain-literal. No, the UUID, b[a]r, URN, ICBM, etc. stuff is fascinating, but it's not in STD 11 / 10 or RfC 2822 / 2821, let alone RfC 1036. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 14 12:14:27 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29189 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:14:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0EHCYNq038439 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0EHCYwj038438 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0EHCXlL038422 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-70-52.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.70.52 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2005 17:12:27 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0EHCIW25932 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:12:18 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20559 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E422D3.5FA6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:04:22 GMT Lines: 99 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> (ruling from the Chair still awaited) >Something is odd if you need "higher" authorities to define the >essence of net news, i.e. Message-ID. I still think that's our >job. Of course Alexej could help us (add tin[wuo] as needed) >if we'd confuse Message-IDs with say message digests or UUIDs. >The proposed UUID standard was checked by the A-D. I need a ruling from the chair to depart from RFC 2822 on a matter where no problem of interoperability arises (or where it was a problem that already existed in email). >Only syntactically legal, but it's a strictly invalid domain >literal b[a]r >No version of IP and no notation for IPs allows b[ar]r, what's >it supposed to mean as either IPv4 or IPv6 ? Who knows? It might mean something in IPv99, or in some totally different transport medium. I suppose that is why both RFC 822 and RFC 2822 left it so wide open. >It's definitely illegal as the RHS of a From: mailbox in net >news, the only allowed invalid RHS is something ending in "TLD" >.invalid, as the name says. >That important bit of information didn't make it from the last >complete draft to the new split stuff, but it's clear in 2822 >(3.6.2). IMNSHO you should add this explicitly to the split >drafts: Yes. Alexei didn't want it covered in USEFOR, so it's now in USEPRO (isn't it in the latest draft - it is certainly now in my master copy). It's not the only thing still missing from USEFOR. >Back to your example, From: is illegal. Reason: >| The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message, that >| is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible >| for the writing of the message. >That's what 2822 says in section 3.6.2, and therefore it's also >relevant for the split drafts. So why is it allowed in 822 and 2822? Presumably to allow for future transport arrangements where it might be meaningful. But it is essentially a problem for the mail people, not for us. >> I want a subset of the RFC 2822 syntax, with the same name >> and the same semantics >You really want a new meaning for the RHS in the case of address >literals, your idea is not the same as in all Internet standards. >Let's take the stuff you found in an old draft, with hex. digits >etc. My proposal atext / "." / ":" was obviously much too broad >to avoid this confusion. >> I see nothing in RFC 822 which says that. AFAICS, RFC 822 >> allows URNs, SSNs and all other nonsense in , >> just like RFC 2822 does. >| An addr-spec is a specific Internet identifier that contains a >| locally interpreted string followed by the at-sign character >| ("@", ASCII value 64) followed by an Internet domain. >[...] >| In the domain-literal form, the domain is interpreted as the >| literal Internet address of the particular host. In both >| cases, how addressing is used and how messages are >| transported to a particular host is covered in the mail >| transport document [RFC2821]. These mechanisms are outside >| of the scope of this document. But those words are not in RFC 822, as you implied. OK, I now see them in RFC 2822, but they are still indicating that it is up to the transport document to state the precise interpretation. But those words do at least give you a case for saying that there is a bug in RFC 2822, insofar as it did not apply that wording to no-fold-literals. But then, I still don't think it is our job to fix bugs in RFC 2822, but again you can appeal to our Chair on that. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 14 21:44:29 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18740 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:44:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0F2eKCQ005081 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:40:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0F2eKvj005080 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:40:20 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0F2eJvm004917 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:40:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (alb-24-194-5-169.nycap.rr.com [24.194.5.169]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:40:08 +0000 Message-ID: <41E88284.70905@isode.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:40:04 -0500 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Archive References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C9AFEB.4050902@isode.com> <20041222230155.GA1758@roxel.fqdn.de> <41D34D01.33FD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: >In <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: > > >>Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> >>>I don't really see what point you are trying to make, or what >>>you find wrong with my words "future use, and also to allow >>>future extensions to add further parameters". >>> >>> >>You say: We need filename for further parameters. I say: No, >>opt-parameter-list could do this trick without a filename. The >>point is that I'm against the filename, and maybe Bruce also >>doesn't like it: >> >> > >Ah! So you want the Archive header to have provision for a list of >MIME-style parameters (just like we originally intended for all the news >headers), but with no specific parameters defined just yet. Then the >filename parameter can be added later if/when there is a specific need for >it. > >Anyone else happy with that arrangement? I see no problem. > > Not talking about particular syntax for extensions, this sounds fine to me. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 14 23:23:03 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24927 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:23:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0F4LYJx094125 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:21:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0F4LX2x094116 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:21:33 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0F4LWNY094058 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:21:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (alb-24-194-5-169.nycap.rr.com [24.194.5.169]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:21:28 +0000 Message-ID: <41E89A46.2020908@isode.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:21:26 -0500 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: msg-id References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: >In <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: > > >>Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> >>| msg-id-core = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" >>| mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") >> >> > >I am still waiting for a ruling from our Chair as to whether we can make >further changes to the RFC 2822 that are not required by some >absolute technical necessity. > > Such changes are outside the scope for the WG and should be done when RFC 2822 is revised. In particular, we should avoid temptation to define a tight syntax for "mdomain" - doing so might hurt USEFOR in the future. >And it would be nice to hear also from other WG members as to whether they >approve of these further changes that you are suggesting. > > From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Jan 16 14:53:03 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14394 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:53:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0GJoOLk082976 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:50:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0GJoOBd082974 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:50:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0GJoMFH082890 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:50:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CqGPl-0008Lk-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:50:21 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.126 ([213.191.80.126]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:50:21 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.126 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:50:21 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:43:02 +0100 Organization: Lines: 102 Message-ID: <41EAC3C6.6214@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E89A46.2020908@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.126 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>>| mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") >> I am still waiting for a ruling from our Chair as to whether >> we can make further changes to the RFC 2822 that >> are not required by some absolute technical necessity. > Such changes are outside the scope for the WG and should be > done when RFC 2822 is revised. In particular, we should avoid > temptation to define a tight syntax for "mdomain" - doing so > might hurt USEFOR in the future. Okay, let's sort it out, "mdomain" is IMO just a better name than "id-right" (and "unique" is better than "id-left") for two reasons: 1 - our "id-left" and "id-right" _syntax_ is a proper subset of the 2822-syntax. We want canonical (= unambiguous) msg-ids without NO-WS-CTL for NNTP and the news-URL. 2 - our "id-left" and "id-right" still have the same semantics as 2822, 1036, etc. This semantics is better reflected by "unique" / "mdomain" instead of new "id-left" / "id-right" Only a new name for a necessary change, so that's apparently allowed for you and Charles. You're not necessarily convinced that it's a good idea, but it's not a "political" question. Is that correct so far ? Whatever the future name of the RHS is, "mdomain" or "id-right", we need some syntax for it. Obviously we all want the RfC 2822 dot-atom-text for the normal cases wich are no domain literals: TBD1 = dot-atom-text / ( "[" TBD2 "]" ) For TBD1 insert either id-right or mdomain as the name of this beast. And for TBD2 insert either no-fold-literal or address- literal. Again the name should be no political question, but IMHO it's clearer to say address-literal, the syntax isn't the same as no-fold-literal in 2822. Finally you say that a "tight" syntax for TBD2 is out of scope. That kills any attempt to specify address literals completely, like copying syntax from 2821, 3513, or the old draft trying this (hex. digits plus dot and colon). We apparently all agree that we don't want to define address literals completely, and that's one interpretation of "tight". The next logical step is to enumerate all legal characters in a domain literal without details: 1*( DIGIT / "a" / "b" / "c" / "d" / "e" / "f" / "." / ":" ) My crystal ball tells me that while that's not a complete specification, it's still too "tight" for you, and I also don't like it, it wouldn't allow version tags like ipv6: etc. 1*( atext / "." / ":" ) The same notoriously unreliable crystal ball tells me that you also don't like this, although it's not really "tight". The only proposed alternative is Charles' "maximal" solution: 1*( atext / "." / ":" / "," / ";" / "(" / ")" / "<" / "@" / DQUOTE / "\\" / "\[" / "\]" ) Putting it all together I get this updated syntax for a msg-id: | msg-id = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" | unique = dot-atom-text / ( DQUOTE unique-quote DQUOTE ) | unique-quote = ( "." [unique-part] ) / | ( [unique-part] "." ) / | ( [unique-part] unique-literal [unique-part] ) | unique-part = 1*( atext / "." / unique-literal ) | unique-literal = "(" / ")" / "," / ; all specials, minus ">", | "[" / "]" / "@" / ; minus DQUOTE, minus "\", | ":" / ";" / "<" / ; minus single ".", plus: | ".." / "\\" / ( "\" DQUOTE ) | mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") | address-literal = 1*( %d33-61 / ; printable ASCII minus | %d63-90 / ; ">", "[", "\", "]" | %d94-126 / ; plus "\[", "\\, "\]" | "\[" / "\\" / "\]" ) Can we agree on this very broad syntax for address-literal in a msg-id, or is there still a syntactical (or even political ;-) problem ? If the syntax is fine then the name address-literal instead of no-fold-literal is IMHO justified, because this syntax is much simpler than the "[" *(dtext / quoted-pair) "]" stuff in 2822. It's essentially the same as the usefor-02 no-fold-literal, the only difference is 1*(...) instead of *(...) because I don't believe in empty domain literals. Anything else is cosmetical. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Jan 16 16:28:07 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18741 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:28:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0GLQY4t016297 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:26:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0GLQYXI016296 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:26:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0GLQWTh016253 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:26:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CqHuq-0001pN-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:26:32 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.126 ([213.191.80.126]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:26:32 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.126 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:26:32 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:21:19 +0100 Organization: Lines: 96 Message-ID: <41EADACF.4626@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.126 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > I need a ruling from the chair to depart from RFC 2822 on a > matter where no problem of interoperability arises (or where > it was a problem that already existed in email). Apparently Alexej likes your idea to allow anything which is not a known problem better than my idea atext / "." / ":" or less, so that's settled, see my reply to Alexej. [b\[a\]r] > Who knows? It might mean something in IPv99, or in some > totally different transport medium. I suppose that is why > both RFC 822 and RFC 2822 left it so wide open. Maybe, but they made a really bad job out of it. You asked for something in STD 11 about this problem, and I found only: | A domain-ref must be THE official name of a registry, network, | or host. It is a symbolic reference, within a name sub- | domain. At times, it is necessary to bypass standard mechan- | isms for resolving such references, using more primitive | information, such as a network host address rather than its | associated host name. | To permit such references, this standard provides the domain- | literal construct. Its contents must conform with the needs | of the sub-domain in which it is interpreted. | Domain-literals which refer to domains within the ARPA Inter- | net specify 32-bit Internet addresses, in four 8-bit fields | noted in decimal, as described in Request for Comments #820, | "Assigned Numbers." For example: | [10.0.3.19] | Note: THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. It | is permitted only as a means of bypassing temporary | system limitations, such as name tables which are not | complete. In other words, don't use domain literals whenever possible. If necessary it must have a meaning within the sub-domain where it's used. For IN it's an IP, but maybe a "bar" network exists where b[a]r has a meaning, the name of an amateur radio station or whatever. In the times of STD 10 and 11 no problem, they had routes and return-paths and gateways. If there was a question about b[a]r they probably could ask postmaster%b[a]r@gateway.example Now I'm tempted to say somewhere in the draft(s) that a system using local@[b\[a\]r] in net news should make sure that its path or injection-info somehow allow to determine the FQDN gateway.example OTOH that's a bit too esoteric for my taste. [From: header] > Alexei didn't want it covered in USEFOR, so it's now in > USEPRO (isn't it in the latest draft - it is certainly now in > my master copy). I didn't see it in usepro-01. The TLD .invalid stuff is there, but 2822 obviuously expects valid From: mailbox addresses, and therefore it might be necessary to mention TLD .invalid in USEFOR explicitly. At the moment all you have is a pointer to RfC 2822, is that good enough for the TLD .invalid addresses ? The idea is, or rather I think the idea is, that an address with domain literal b[a]r must be valid somewhere, and if it's visible in the Internet (or Usenet), then a gateway for b[a]r must be known. But TLD .invalid is really invalid, there's no gateway or MX for an .invalid address. Is user@example.ten a third category ? In theory there could be another domain system, where example.ten makes sense. More probably it's a typo or intentional nonsense. And TLD .invalid is "better" than other invalid addresses, because it's at least obvious. And it's one of the USEFOR ideas which are already "common practice" to a certain degree. Hiding this somewhere deep in USEPRO could be seen as a step backwards. I'm not sure about it, and maybe my interpretation that 2822 "obviously" wants valid addresses is wrong. > essentially a problem for the mail people, not for us. Valid vs. invalid From: addresses, or valid vs. invalid right hand sides of Message-IDs are also our problem. When two or more systems start to create the same Message-IDs or to cancel articles of the other systems it's relevant for us. The least we should do is to warn people that there's no such thing as a "correct" cancel for articles from some@body.invalid, and that Message-IDs like might be a bad idea. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 17 22:14:56 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20500 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:14:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0I3CUlr014313 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0I3CUsO014312 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0I3CTbs014275 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-64-29.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.64.29 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2005 03:12:23 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0I3CDV02316 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:12:13 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20564 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Archive Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C9AFEB.4050902@isode.com> <20041222230155.GA1758@roxel.fqdn.de> <41D34D01.33FD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E88284.70905@isode.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:43:01 GMT Lines: 32 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41E88284.70905@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >>Ah! So you want the Archive header to have provision for a list of >>MIME-style parameters (just like we originally intended for all the news >>headers), but with no specific parameters defined just yet. Then the >>filename parameter can be added later if/when there is a specific need for >>it. >> >>Anyone else happy with that arrangement? I see no problem. >> >> >Not talking about particular syntax for extensions, this sounds fine to me. OK, I think Alexey, Frank and myself would be happy with that, and someone else in this thread seemed to think the possibility of filename parameters might be useful at some later date to the news.answers moderators, but no pressing need for them at this instant. No other comments. Does that mean we have a rough consensus? -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 17 22:15:18 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20544 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:15:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0I3CWgG014327 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0I3CWAq014326 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0I3CU36014279 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-64-29.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.64.29 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2005 03:12:24 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0I3CFq02324 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:12:15 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20566 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41EADACF.4626@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:13:36 GMT Lines: 94 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41EADACF.4626@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Maybe, but they made a really bad job out of it. You asked >for something in STD 11 about this problem, and I found only: >| A domain-ref must be THE official name of a registry, network, >| or host. It is a symbolic reference, within a name sub- >| domain. At times, it is necessary to bypass standard mechan- >| isms for resolving such references, using more primitive >| information, such as a network host address rather than its >| associated host name. >| To permit such references, this standard provides the domain- >| literal construct. Its contents must conform with the needs >| of the sub-domain in which it is interpreted. I.e. it depends on the network. On the internet, we have IPv[46] at the moment. >| Domain-literals which refer to domains within the ARPA Inter- >| net specify 32-bit Internet addresses, in four 8-bit fields >| noted in decimal, as described in Request for Comments #820, >| "Assigned Numbers." For example: >| [10.0.3.19] The RFC 2822 wording is slightly stronger, if anything; it just doesn't apply (apparently) to and . I would not be averse to a NOTE in USEFOR to emphasize the point, but I don't think we need go beyond that. It is really their problem. And Aleyei might still say it is really a USEAGE matter. >In the times of STD 10 and 11 no problem, they had routes and >return-paths and gateways. If there was a question about b[a]r >they probably could ask postmaster%b[a]r@gateway.example >Now I'm tempted to say somewhere in the draft(s) that a system >using local@[b\[a\]r] in net news should make sure that its >path or injection-info somehow allow to determine the FQDN >gateway.example OTOH that's a bit too esoteric for my taste. There is no problem with the path and injection-info. In the case of injecting agents, at least, they MUST be "mailable" (i.e. "news@..." or "usenet@..."), though I think this is one of the bits of draft-13 that Ken has not incorporated into USEFOR yet. > [From: header] >> Alexei didn't want it covered in USEFOR, so it's now in >> USEPRO (isn't it in the latest draft - it is certainly now in >> my master copy). >I didn't see it in usepro-01. The TLD .invalid stuff is there, >but 2822 obviuously expects valid From: mailbox addresses, and >therefore it might be necessary to mention TLD .invalid in >USEFOR explicitly. At the moment all you have is a pointer to >RfC 2822, is that good enough for the TLD .invalid addresses ? The wording in "Duties of a Posting Agent" in my current file is: Contrary to [RFC 2822], which states that the mailbox(es) in the From header is that of the poster(s), a poster who does not, for whatever reason, wish to use his own mailbox MAY use any mailbox ending in the top level domain ".invalid" [RFC 2606]. AFAIR that was in Usepro-02. >The idea is, or rather I think the idea is, that an address >with domain literal b[a]r must be valid somewhere, and if it's >visible in the Internet (or Usenet), then a gateway for b[a]r >must be known. But TLD .invalid is really invalid, there's no >gateway or MX for an .invalid address. >Valid vs. invalid From: addresses, or valid vs. invalid right >hand sides of Message-IDs are also our problem. When two or >more systems start to create the same Message-IDs or to cancel >articles of the other systems it's relevant for us. The least >we should do is to warn people that there's no such thing as a >"correct" cancel for articles from some@body.invalid, and that >Message-IDs like might be a bad idea. I think such a Message-ID would already breach a RECOMMENDATION in RFC 2822. But then Agent breaches that RECOMMENDATION every day :-( . -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 17 23:01:48 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20502 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:14:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0I3CShZ014291 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0I3CSOn014290 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:28 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0I3CRs2014265 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-64-29.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.64.29 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2005 03:12:21 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0I3CDu02320 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:12:13 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20565 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E89A46.2020908@isode.com> <41EAC3C6.6214@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:47:48 GMT Lines: 21 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41EAC3C6.6214@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >It's essentially the same as the usefor-02 no-fold-literal, the >only difference is 1*(...) instead of *(...) because I don't >believe in empty domain literals. Anything else is cosmetical. No, I don't "believe" in them, but nothing breaks, so if RFC2822 is prepared to countenance them, even in s, we should leave well (or ill) alone. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 19 07:35:03 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07409 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:35:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0JCVIow040048 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:31:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0JCVIgo040047 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:31:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0JCVBWs039921 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:31:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CrEzI-0005wB-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:31:04 +0100 Received: from c-134-92-210.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.92.210]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:31:04 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-92-210.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:31:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:28:24 +0100 Organization: Lines: 26 Message-ID: <41EE5268.5E67@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E89A46.2020908@isode.com> <41EAC3C6.6214@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-92-210.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: [empty domain literals] > No, I don't "believe" in them, but nothing breaks, so if > RFC2822 is prepared to countenance them, even in > s, we should leave well (or ill) alone. Alexej said "no tight syntax", not "copy all bugs" ;-) But 1* vs. * is not really important. One minor detail is still strange: you excluded ">" because that could confuse very simple parsers. You kept "<" because it's no problem. For domain literals you exclude "]" allowing only "\]", and of course you also exclude "\" allowing only "\\". So far the same idea as for ">". But you also exclude "[" allowing only "\[". That's not strictly necessary, how about adding %d91 "[" to the legal characters in a domain literal ? | address-literal = 1*( %d33-61 / ; for IPv6 see RfC 3513 | %d63-91 / ; printable ASCII | %d94-126 / ; minus ">", "\", "]" | "\\" / "\]" ) ; plus "\\, "\]" Not exactly logical, but the same logic as for "<". Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 19 12:03:22 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28589 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:03:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0JH0u4H092714 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:00:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0JH0uZ7092713 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:00:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0JH0sYK092667 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:00:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CrJCP-0006Nz-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:00:53 +0100 Received: from c-134-92-210.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.92.210]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:00:53 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-92-210.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:00:53 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:54:48 +0100 Organization: Lines: 77 Message-ID: <41EE90D8.544@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41EADACF.4626@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-92-210.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > The RFC 2822 wording is slightly stronger, if anything; it > just doesn't apply (apparently) to and . > I would not be averse to a NOTE in USEFOR to emphasize the > point, but I don't think we need go beyond that. We could copy the 822 note: | THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. In a modern form based on 2119 that could be: Note: Domain-literals SHOULD NOT be used if a FQDN host name is available. Assuming that FQDN is explained somewhere in the draft. Not in usefor-02 at the moment, so maybe that's better: Note: Domain-literals SHOULD NOT be used if a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) for the host is available. There's no good place for this note, you could insert it instead of the explanation of msg-id-core (unnecessary because you plan to use msg-id instead if msg-id-core) at the end of 3.1.3. 3.1.3 is about msg-id, so that would result in this text: Note: Domain-literals in message IDs and mailbox addresses SHOULD NOT be used if a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) is available. > Aleyei might still say it is really a USEAGE matter. Quoting an essential idea of STD 11 and RfC 2822 is more than only a USEAGE matter. In the case of dynamic IPs or IPs like 127.0.0.1 etc. domain literals can be fundamentally bad. Okay, localhost is not much better. :-) > There is no problem with the path and injection-info. In the > case of injecting agents, at least, they MUST be "mailable" > (i.e. "news@..." or "usenet@..."), though I think this is one > of the bits of draft-13 that Ken has not incorporated into > USEFOR yet. Important, it avoids some potential problems. BTW, in a recent discussion about the definition of Usenet I had some problems to explain why I wouldn't consider a Web forum interface to some newsgroups as a part of Usenet. One idea was to say "if the users can't get the complete article in the format defined by RfC 1036, then it's not Usenet". That would exclude something like groups-beta.google.com (not necessarily the old interface with its output=gplain format and access on Message-IDs). Or did I miss something obvious ? The argument was, that no RfC forbids to use HTTP to transport Usenet articles. > "Duties of a Posting Agent" in my current file is: That's apparently different from usepro-01. Maye you forgot to send usepro-02 to the I-D list, the last IETF I-D is still 01. Okay, I found the 2nd draft: >> Message-IDs like might be a bad idea. > I think such a Message-ID would already breach a > RECOMMENDATION in RFC 2822. But then Agent breaches that > RECOMMENDATION every day :-( . It doesn't use @[b[a\]r] or @[b\[a\]r] or @body.invalid etc. Maybe it's older than RfC 2822. Old software is always a good excuse to ignore any new SHOULD. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 25 08:10:59 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01888 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:10:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0PD7aYX080670 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:07:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0PD7aNi080666 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:07:36 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0PD7YmG080532 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:07:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-193.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.193 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2005 13:07:20 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0PD6Ph07131 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:06:25 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20569 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:41:58 GMT Lines: 36 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: > [empty domain literals] >> No, I don't "believe" in them, but nothing breaks, so if >> RFC2822 is prepared to countenance them, even in >> s, we should leave well (or ill) alone. >Alexej said "no tight syntax", not "copy all bugs" ;-) >But 1* vs. * is not really important. One minor detail is >still strange: you excluded ">" because that could confuse >very simple parsers. You kept "<" because it's no problem. Same in RFC 1036. >For domain literals you exclude "]" allowing only "\]", and >of course you also exclude "\" allowing only "\\". So far >the same idea as for ">". But you also exclude "[" allowing >only "\[". That's not strictly necessary, how about adding >%d91 "[" to the legal characters in a domain literal ? We excluded them both because RFC 2822 excludes them both. We would not have been a subset of RFC 2822 syntax if we had done otherwise. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 25 08:11:00 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01907 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:11:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0PD7aGt080671 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:07:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0PD7aXK080667 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:07:36 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0PD7Y3j080550 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:07:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-193.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.193 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2005 13:07:22 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0PD6Qk07135 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:06:26 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20570 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:05:58 GMT Lines: 64 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> The RFC 2822 wording is slightly stronger, if anything; it >> just doesn't apply (apparently) to and . >> I would not be averse to a NOTE in USEFOR to emphasize the >> point, but I don't think we need go beyond that. >We could copy the 822 note: >| THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. I think it would be better to build on the wording already present in RFC 2822 - just making it clear that it applies to s. Anyway, I have added that to my list of things to do. >.... BTW, in a recent >discussion about the definition of Usenet I had some problems >to explain why I wouldn't consider a Web forum interface to some >newsgroups as a part of Usenet. One idea was to say "if the >users can't get the complete article in the format defined by >RfC 1036, then it's not Usenet". That would exclude something >like groups-beta.google.com (not necessarily the old interface >with its output=gplain format and access on Message-IDs). >Or did I miss something obvious ? The argument was, that no >RfC forbids to use HTTP to transport Usenet articles. There is nothing wrong in using HTTP for transport, but to follow our standard you still have to do it within the framework of the various agents that we define. So far as out standard is concerned, Google is just another serving agent. The problem is that it insists on using its ghastly interface as your only reading agent (interfaces beteeen serving and reading agents are not covered by our draft, though NNTP has a lot to say on the subject). Perhaps that is a reason for leaving alone (and even strengthening) the "Duties of a reading agent" section which some people have asked me to remove. For sure, a reading agent should be capable of displaying everything that is conveyed by a document in the form prescribed by USEFOR. >That's apparently different from usepro-01. Maye you forgot to >send usepro-02 to the I-D list, the last IETF I-D is still 01. >Okay, I found the 2nd draft: > Aaaaarrrrggghhhhhhhhh! I am sure I sent it long ago, and it has been discussed on this list. Anyway, I have sent it off again. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 25 22:28:05 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13778 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:28:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0Q3PTJZ044238 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:25:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0Q3PTDj044237 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:25:29 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0Q3PRZP044224 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ctdnz-0007Lu-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:25:19 +0100 Received: from du-001-214.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.214]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:25:19 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-214.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:25:19 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:41:19 +0100 Organization: Lines: 11 Message-ID: <41F7034F.3947@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41EADACF.4626@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41EE90D8.544@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-214.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: [[\]] > We excluded them both because RFC 2822 excludes them both. ACK, sorry, I forgot to check 2822 dtext. This thread about Message-IDs and some cases of [FWS] should be finished now ;-) Bye, Frank (strange References: fixed here) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 25 22:32:43 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14016 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:32:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0Q3VXNj044732 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:31:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0Q3VXhZ044731 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:31:33 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0Q3VWF7044725 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:31:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ctdtz-0007Wa-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:31:31 +0100 Received: from du-001-214.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.214]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:31:31 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-214.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:31:31 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:13:22 +0100 Organization: Lines: 23 Message-ID: <41F70AD2.7F73@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-214.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: >> We could copy the 822 note: >>| THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. > I think it would be better to build on the wording already > present in RFC 2822 - just making it clear that it applies > to s. STD 10 is clearer, it says "whenever possible don't". RfC 2822 is less convincing. Unless you'd add a pointer to this thread with 2821, 3513, 2396bis, foo@[b\[a\]r], and UUID discussions. > Anyway, I have added that to my list of things to do. Okay. BTW, some of the links on documents.html don't work at the moment. What else is on your to-do lists ? Do we have a decent Path: syntax ? Does it allow the same domain literals as in Message-IDs ? And what's the idea of your experiment with the References: in this article (I didn't touch it ;-) ? Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 26 07:41:02 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18636 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:41:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0QCdCLM091921 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:39:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0QCdClq091919 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:39:12 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0QCdBJB091850 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:39:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-72-161.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.72.161 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2005 12:12:25 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0QCCBm18875 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:12:11 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20575 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <41F70AD2.7F73@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:04:39 GMT Lines: 43 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41F70AD2.7F73@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Okay. BTW, some of the links on documents.html don't work at >the moment. OK. Which ones? > What else is on your to-do lists ? Do we have a >decent Path: syntax ? No. That is awaiting some reaction from my last list of issues. So please say something, somebody! It is holding up progress. Essentially, we have to decide between various notations, since there were some (slight but possible) suspicions that the delimiter characters we had chosen were not the best for avoiding compatibility problems. My own current preference is to avoid the problem by using conspicuous entries ...!POSTED!... and ...!MISMATCH!... at the proper places in the Path header, and to use a "double bang" ...!!... to indicate that the site had checked the accuracy of the thing to the right of the !!. > Does it allow the same domain literals >as in Message-IDs ? NO_WS_CTL has gone. > And what's the idea of your experiment >with the References: in this article (I didn't touch it ;-) ? Ah! That was a message to the ietf-822 list which went astray (you already saw and responded to it there). -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 26 07:41:19 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18684 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:41:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0QCdCos091908 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:39:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0QCdCx7091906 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:39:12 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0QCdA91091842 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:39:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-72-161.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.72.161 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2005 12:12:24 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0QAekm15399 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:40:46 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20574 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Experiment #3 with multiple Reference headers Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200411302014.06108.blilly@erols.com> <200501100920.17864.blilly@erols.com> <200501120909.05983.blilly@erols.com> <200501141637.j0EGbUT25583@clerew.man.ac.uk> <200501171739.j0HHdHP20713@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:36:17 GMT Lines: 21 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200501171739.j0HHdHP20713@clerew.man.ac.uk> Charles Lindsey writes: >This message responds to several others, and contains a References header for >each of them. So it cannot be expected that existing MUAs will thread them >particularly well. So the things to look out for are: Aaaaarrrgghhhhh! Ignore that. It was a copy of a message sent to the ietf-822 list which I was trying to feed back into my own system, and which got fed back to the wrong place :-( . -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Jan 27 03:21:51 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA00859 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:21:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0R8JqxO072758 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:19:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0R8JqU0072757 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:19:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0R8Jovn072712 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:19:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Cu4sY-0003Ms-00 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:19:50 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.19 ([212.82.251.19]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:19:50 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.19 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:19:50 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: To do (was: msg-id) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:12:31 +0100 Organization: Lines: 80 Message-ID: <41F8A26F.14FC@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <41F70AD2.7F73@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.19 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: [] >> some of the links on documents.html don't work at the moment. > OK. Which ones? http://www.imc.org/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt http://www.imc.org/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-msg-id-alt-00.txt These are the only links I tested, both result in a 404. You can use a tool like to get a complete list (eight 404) For the news URL the last draft is 04 instead of 02 containing exactly zero of your or my improvements. Whatever that means, neither you nor the author answered my questions about it on the URI list. I could try to reconstruct a "working draft" from this mess if necessary (s/2396bis/3986/g etc.) >> Do we have a decent Path: syntax ? > No. [...] > My own current preference is to avoid the problem by using > conspicuous entries ...!POSTED!... and ...!MISMATCH!... at > the proper places in the Path header Okay, that's at least some kind of common practice, "problems" with UUCP hosts POSTED or MISMATCH are fantasy, and ICANN has no plans to introduce TLDs POSTED or MISMATCH. > and to use a "double bang" ...!!... to indicate that the site > had checked the accuracy of the thing to the right of the !!. Something I can't judge, how can we test it ? If all existing news servers have no problem with ...!!... that should be okay. >> Does it allow the same domain literals as in Message-IDs ? > NO_WS_CTL has gone. What's a-5.6.1 and a-5.6.2 ? The new drafts have no chapter 5.6. I don't find the place where you say that a path-identity can be a domain literal minus "[" and "]" in the case of IPv4, or how IPv6 domain literals are specified as "path-identity". Some syntax could help: path-identity = dot-atom-text / path-literal path-literal = ipv4 / ipv6 / ipvfuture ipv4 = *( DIGIT / "." ) ; see RfC ???? ipv6 = *( iphex / ":" / "." ) ; see RfC 3513 ipvfuture = "[" address-literal "]" ; see 3.1.3 iphex = DIGIT / "a" / "b" / "c" / "d" / "e" / "f" So far for Alexey's "no tight syntax" We have a problem if IPvFuture literals can contain a "!". And my idea is again ambiguous, for ipv6 we'd need "at least one colon" to fix it. For ipv4 vs. dot-atom-text we need ICANN (TLDs must contain an ALPHA) plus a new RfC published last year about this issue. I don't find it at the moment, it was a BCP or FYI explaining l-d-h-string among other problems. >> what's the idea of your experiment with the References: in >> this article (I didn't touch it ;-) ? > That was a message to the ietf-822 list which went astray > (you already saw and responded to it there). No, your ietf-822 experiments (and my replies) all went to the ietf-822 list, I only sent one courtesy copy to you, because I didn't know that all GMaNe users have write access on this list. The effect here was something different, GMaNe "raw" format: You could of course also see it with NNTP on news.gmane.org, some really strange References: headers... ;-) Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 28 22:14:21 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17472 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:14:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0T3CYXQ013413 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0T3CYka013412 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0T3CWo8013389 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-64-149.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.64.149 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2005 03:12:24 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0T3CAH14059 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 29 Jan 2005 03:12:10 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20577 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: To do (was: msg-id) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <41F70AD2.7F73@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41F8A26F.14FC@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:20:46 GMT Lines: 76 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41F8A26F.14FC@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: > [] >>> some of the links on documents.html don't work at the moment. >> OK. Which ones? >http://www.imc.org/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt >http://www.imc.org/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-msg-id-alt-00.txt >These are the only links I tested, both result in a 404. You >can use a tool like to get >a complete list (eight 404) That is most odd. Most of the documents are actually there (and I have just put up a couple that are missing). I shall have to check with Pete Hoffman. >For the news URL the last draft is 04 instead of 02 containing >exactly zero of your or my improvements. Whatever that means, >neither you nor the author answered my questions about it on >the URI list. I could try to reconstruct a "working draft" from >this mess if necessary (s/2396bis/3986/g etc.) yes, but nothing has changed between 02 and 04 :-(. Yes, I owe you some replies on the URI list. >>> Do we have a decent Path: syntax ? >> No. >[...] >> My own current preference is to avoid the problem by using >> conspicuous entries ...!POSTED!... and ...!MISMATCH!... at >> the proper places in the Path header >Okay, that's at least some kind of common practice, "problems" >with UUCP hosts POSTED or MISMATCH are fantasy, and ICANN has >no plans to introduce TLDs POSTED or MISMATCH. >> and to use a "double bang" ...!!... to indicate that the site >> had checked the accuracy of the thing to the right of the !!. >Something I can't judge, how can we test it ? If all existing >news servers have no problem with ...!!... that should be okay. There are examples in RFC 1036 of two s adjacent, so presumably it was intended to be OK. I would like to hear more opinions on this. Some articles sent to the *.test groups might be a good idea too. >>> Does it allow the same domain literals as in Message-IDs ? >> NO_WS_CTL has gone. >What's a-5.6.1 and a-5.6.2 ? Those are references to the old draft-13. They are currently being updated to refer to USEFOR. >.... I don't find the place where you say that a path-identity >can be a domain literal minus "[" and "]" in the case of IPv4, >or how IPv6 domain literals are specified as "path-identity". It was all in the old draft-13, and I am waiting for Ken to move them into USEFOR. But I think he is waiting until we get the delimiter conventions sorted out, and then the whole section can be written properly. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Jan 31 22:15:38 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13249 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:15:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j113Ckm3047372 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:12:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j113CkwV047371 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:12:46 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j113Ca2t047341 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:12:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-74-92.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.74.92 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2005 03:12:24 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j113CCH04373 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 03:12:12 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20578 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: To do (was: msg-id) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <41F70AD2.7F73@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41F8A26F.14FC@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:51:24 GMT Lines: 41 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In "Charles Lindsey" writes: >In <41F8A26F.14FC@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >>Charles Lindsey wrote: >> [] >>>> some of the links on documents.html don't work at the moment. >>> OK. Which ones? >>http://www.imc.org/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt >>http://www.imc.org/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-msg-id-alt-00.txt >>These are the only links I tested, both result in a 404. You >>can use a tool like to get >>a complete list (eight 404) >That is most odd. Most of the documents are actually there (and I have >just put up a couple that are missing). I shall have to check with Pete >Hoffman. OK, these should now be fixed. The links should have said (and now do) http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-msg-id-alt-00.txt BTW, I never announced here that, at your request, Martin Junius' scheme for gatewaying Message-IDs between Usenet and Fidonet is now available at http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/drafts/FTN-Internet.txt -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j113Ckm3047372 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:12:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j113CkwV047371 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:12:46 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j113Ca2t047341 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:12:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-74-92.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.74.92 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2005 03:12:24 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j113CCH04373 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 03:12:12 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20578 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: To do (was: msg-id) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <41F70AD2.7F73@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41F8A26F.14FC@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:51:24 GMT Lines: 41 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In "Charles Lindsey" writes: >In <41F8A26F.14FC@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >>Charles Lindsey wrote: >> [] >>>> some of the links on documents.html don't work at the moment. >>> OK. Which ones? >>http://www.imc.org/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt >>http://www.imc.org/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-msg-id-alt-00.txt >>These are the only links I tested, both result in a 404. You >>can use a tool like to get >>a complete list (eight 404) >That is most odd. Most of the documents are actually there (and I have >just put up a couple that are missing). I shall have to check with Pete >Hoffman. OK, these should now be fixed. The links should have said (and now do) http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-msg-id-alt-00.txt BTW, I never announced here that, at your request, Martin Junius' scheme for gatewaying Message-IDs between Usenet and Fidonet is now available at http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/drafts/FTN-Internet.txt -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0T3CYXQ013413 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0T3CYka013412 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0T3CWo8013389 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-64-149.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.64.149 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2005 03:12:24 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0T3CAH14059 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 29 Jan 2005 03:12:10 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20577 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: To do (was: msg-id) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <41F70AD2.7F73@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41F8A26F.14FC@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:20:46 GMT Lines: 76 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41F8A26F.14FC@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: > [] >>> some of the links on documents.html don't work at the moment. >> OK. Which ones? >http://www.imc.org/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt >http://www.imc.org/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-msg-id-alt-00.txt >These are the only links I tested, both result in a 404. You >can use a tool like to get >a complete list (eight 404) That is most odd. Most of the documents are actually there (and I have just put up a couple that are missing). I shall have to check with Pete Hoffman. >For the news URL the last draft is 04 instead of 02 containing >exactly zero of your or my improvements. Whatever that means, >neither you nor the author answered my questions about it on >the URI list. I could try to reconstruct a "working draft" from >this mess if necessary (s/2396bis/3986/g etc.) yes, but nothing has changed between 02 and 04 :-(. Yes, I owe you some replies on the URI list. >>> Do we have a decent Path: syntax ? >> No. >[...] >> My own current preference is to avoid the problem by using >> conspicuous entries ...!POSTED!... and ...!MISMATCH!... at >> the proper places in the Path header >Okay, that's at least some kind of common practice, "problems" >with UUCP hosts POSTED or MISMATCH are fantasy, and ICANN has >no plans to introduce TLDs POSTED or MISMATCH. >> and to use a "double bang" ...!!... to indicate that the site >> had checked the accuracy of the thing to the right of the !!. >Something I can't judge, how can we test it ? If all existing >news servers have no problem with ...!!... that should be okay. There are examples in RFC 1036 of two s adjacent, so presumably it was intended to be OK. I would like to hear more opinions on this. Some articles sent to the *.test groups might be a good idea too. >>> Does it allow the same domain literals as in Message-IDs ? >> NO_WS_CTL has gone. >What's a-5.6.1 and a-5.6.2 ? Those are references to the old draft-13. They are currently being updated to refer to USEFOR. >.... I don't find the place where you say that a path-identity >can be a domain literal minus "[" and "]" in the case of IPv4, >or how IPv6 domain literals are specified as "path-identity". It was all in the old draft-13, and I am waiting for Ken to move them into USEFOR. But I think he is waiting until we get the delimiter conventions sorted out, and then the whole section can be written properly. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0R8JqxO072758 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:19:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0R8JqU0072757 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:19:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0R8Jovn072712 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:19:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Cu4sY-0003Ms-00 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:19:50 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.19 ([212.82.251.19]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:19:50 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.19 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:19:50 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: To do (was: msg-id) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:12:31 +0100 Organization: Lines: 80 Message-ID: <41F8A26F.14FC@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <41F70AD2.7F73@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.19 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: [] >> some of the links on documents.html don't work at the moment. > OK. Which ones? http://www.imc.org/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt http://www.imc.org/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-msg-id-alt-00.txt These are the only links I tested, both result in a 404. You can use a tool like to get a complete list (eight 404) For the news URL the last draft is 04 instead of 02 containing exactly zero of your or my improvements. Whatever that means, neither you nor the author answered my questions about it on the URI list. I could try to reconstruct a "working draft" from this mess if necessary (s/2396bis/3986/g etc.) >> Do we have a decent Path: syntax ? > No. [...] > My own current preference is to avoid the problem by using > conspicuous entries ...!POSTED!... and ...!MISMATCH!... at > the proper places in the Path header Okay, that's at least some kind of common practice, "problems" with UUCP hosts POSTED or MISMATCH are fantasy, and ICANN has no plans to introduce TLDs POSTED or MISMATCH. > and to use a "double bang" ...!!... to indicate that the site > had checked the accuracy of the thing to the right of the !!. Something I can't judge, how can we test it ? If all existing news servers have no problem with ...!!... that should be okay. >> Does it allow the same domain literals as in Message-IDs ? > NO_WS_CTL has gone. What's a-5.6.1 and a-5.6.2 ? The new drafts have no chapter 5.6. I don't find the place where you say that a path-identity can be a domain literal minus "[" and "]" in the case of IPv4, or how IPv6 domain literals are specified as "path-identity". Some syntax could help: path-identity = dot-atom-text / path-literal path-literal = ipv4 / ipv6 / ipvfuture ipv4 = *( DIGIT / "." ) ; see RfC ???? ipv6 = *( iphex / ":" / "." ) ; see RfC 3513 ipvfuture = "[" address-literal "]" ; see 3.1.3 iphex = DIGIT / "a" / "b" / "c" / "d" / "e" / "f" So far for Alexey's "no tight syntax" We have a problem if IPvFuture literals can contain a "!". And my idea is again ambiguous, for ipv6 we'd need "at least one colon" to fix it. For ipv4 vs. dot-atom-text we need ICANN (TLDs must contain an ALPHA) plus a new RfC published last year about this issue. I don't find it at the moment, it was a BCP or FYI explaining l-d-h-string among other problems. >> what's the idea of your experiment with the References: in >> this article (I didn't touch it ;-) ? > That was a message to the ietf-822 list which went astray > (you already saw and responded to it there). No, your ietf-822 experiments (and my replies) all went to the ietf-822 list, I only sent one courtesy copy to you, because I didn't know that all GMaNe users have write access on this list. The effect here was something different, GMaNe "raw" format: You could of course also see it with NNTP on news.gmane.org, some really strange References: headers... ;-) Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0QCdCos091908 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:39:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0QCdCx7091906 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:39:12 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0QCdA91091842 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:39:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-72-161.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.72.161 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2005 12:12:24 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0QAekm15399 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:40:46 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20574 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Experiment #3 with multiple Reference headers Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200411302014.06108.blilly@erols.com> <200501100920.17864.blilly@erols.com> <200501120909.05983.blilly@erols.com> <200501141637.j0EGbUT25583@clerew.man.ac.uk> <200501171739.j0HHdHP20713@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:36:17 GMT Lines: 21 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200501171739.j0HHdHP20713@clerew.man.ac.uk> Charles Lindsey writes: >This message responds to several others, and contains a References header for >each of them. So it cannot be expected that existing MUAs will thread them >particularly well. So the things to look out for are: Aaaaarrrgghhhhh! Ignore that. It was a copy of a message sent to the ietf-822 list which I was trying to feed back into my own system, and which got fed back to the wrong place :-( . -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0QCdCLM091921 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:39:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0QCdClq091919 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:39:12 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0QCdBJB091850 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:39:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-72-161.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.72.161 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2005 12:12:25 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0QCCBm18875 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:12:11 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20575 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <41F70AD2.7F73@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:04:39 GMT Lines: 43 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41F70AD2.7F73@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Okay. BTW, some of the links on documents.html don't work at >the moment. OK. Which ones? > What else is on your to-do lists ? Do we have a >decent Path: syntax ? No. That is awaiting some reaction from my last list of issues. So please say something, somebody! It is holding up progress. Essentially, we have to decide between various notations, since there were some (slight but possible) suspicions that the delimiter characters we had chosen were not the best for avoiding compatibility problems. My own current preference is to avoid the problem by using conspicuous entries ...!POSTED!... and ...!MISMATCH!... at the proper places in the Path header, and to use a "double bang" ...!!... to indicate that the site had checked the accuracy of the thing to the right of the !!. > Does it allow the same domain literals >as in Message-IDs ? NO_WS_CTL has gone. > And what's the idea of your experiment >with the References: in this article (I didn't touch it ;-) ? Ah! That was a message to the ietf-822 list which went astray (you already saw and responded to it there). -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0Q3VXNj044732 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:31:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0Q3VXhZ044731 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:31:33 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0Q3VWF7044725 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:31:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ctdtz-0007Wa-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:31:31 +0100 Received: from du-001-214.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.214]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:31:31 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-214.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:31:31 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:13:22 +0100 Organization: Lines: 23 Message-ID: <41F70AD2.7F73@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-214.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: >> We could copy the 822 note: >>| THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. > I think it would be better to build on the wording already > present in RFC 2822 - just making it clear that it applies > to s. STD 10 is clearer, it says "whenever possible don't". RfC 2822 is less convincing. Unless you'd add a pointer to this thread with 2821, 3513, 2396bis, foo@[b\[a\]r], and UUID discussions. > Anyway, I have added that to my list of things to do. Okay. BTW, some of the links on documents.html don't work at the moment. What else is on your to-do lists ? Do we have a decent Path: syntax ? Does it allow the same domain literals as in Message-IDs ? And what's the idea of your experiment with the References: in this article (I didn't touch it ;-) ? Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0Q3PTJZ044238 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:25:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0Q3PTDj044237 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:25:29 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0Q3PRZP044224 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ctdnz-0007Lu-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:25:19 +0100 Received: from du-001-214.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.214]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:25:19 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-214.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:25:19 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:41:19 +0100 Organization: Lines: 11 Message-ID: <41F7034F.3947@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41EADACF.4626@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41EE90D8.544@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-214.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: [[\]] > We excluded them both because RFC 2822 excludes them both. ACK, sorry, I forgot to check 2822 dtext. This thread about Message-IDs and some cases of [FWS] should be finished now ;-) Bye, Frank (strange References: fixed here) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0PD7aGt080671 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:07:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0PD7aXK080667 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:07:36 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0PD7Y3j080550 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:07:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-193.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.193 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2005 13:07:22 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0PD6Qk07135 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:06:26 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20570 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:05:58 GMT Lines: 64 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> The RFC 2822 wording is slightly stronger, if anything; it >> just doesn't apply (apparently) to and . >> I would not be averse to a NOTE in USEFOR to emphasize the >> point, but I don't think we need go beyond that. >We could copy the 822 note: >| THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. I think it would be better to build on the wording already present in RFC 2822 - just making it clear that it applies to s. Anyway, I have added that to my list of things to do. >.... BTW, in a recent >discussion about the definition of Usenet I had some problems >to explain why I wouldn't consider a Web forum interface to some >newsgroups as a part of Usenet. One idea was to say "if the >users can't get the complete article in the format defined by >RfC 1036, then it's not Usenet". That would exclude something >like groups-beta.google.com (not necessarily the old interface >with its output=gplain format and access on Message-IDs). >Or did I miss something obvious ? The argument was, that no >RfC forbids to use HTTP to transport Usenet articles. There is nothing wrong in using HTTP for transport, but to follow our standard you still have to do it within the framework of the various agents that we define. So far as out standard is concerned, Google is just another serving agent. The problem is that it insists on using its ghastly interface as your only reading agent (interfaces beteeen serving and reading agents are not covered by our draft, though NNTP has a lot to say on the subject). Perhaps that is a reason for leaving alone (and even strengthening) the "Duties of a reading agent" section which some people have asked me to remove. For sure, a reading agent should be capable of displaying everything that is conveyed by a document in the form prescribed by USEFOR. >That's apparently different from usepro-01. Maye you forgot to >send usepro-02 to the I-D list, the last IETF I-D is still 01. >Okay, I found the 2nd draft: > Aaaaarrrrggghhhhhhhhh! I am sure I sent it long ago, and it has been discussed on this list. Anyway, I have sent it off again. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0PD7aYX080670 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:07:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0PD7aNi080666 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:07:36 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0PD7YmG080532 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:07:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-193.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.193 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2005 13:07:20 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0PD6Ph07131 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:06:25 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20569 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:41:58 GMT Lines: 36 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: > [empty domain literals] >> No, I don't "believe" in them, but nothing breaks, so if >> RFC2822 is prepared to countenance them, even in >> s, we should leave well (or ill) alone. >Alexej said "no tight syntax", not "copy all bugs" ;-) >But 1* vs. * is not really important. One minor detail is >still strange: you excluded ">" because that could confuse >very simple parsers. You kept "<" because it's no problem. Same in RFC 1036. >For domain literals you exclude "]" allowing only "\]", and >of course you also exclude "\" allowing only "\\". So far >the same idea as for ">". But you also exclude "[" allowing >only "\[". That's not strictly necessary, how about adding >%d91 "[" to the legal characters in a domain literal ? We excluded them both because RFC 2822 excludes them both. We would not have been a subset of RFC 2822 syntax if we had done otherwise. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0JH0u4H092714 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:00:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0JH0uZ7092713 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:00:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0JH0sYK092667 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:00:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CrJCP-0006Nz-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:00:53 +0100 Received: from c-134-92-210.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.92.210]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:00:53 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-92-210.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:00:53 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:54:48 +0100 Organization: Lines: 77 Message-ID: <41EE90D8.544@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41EADACF.4626@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-92-210.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > The RFC 2822 wording is slightly stronger, if anything; it > just doesn't apply (apparently) to and . > I would not be averse to a NOTE in USEFOR to emphasize the > point, but I don't think we need go beyond that. We could copy the 822 note: | THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. In a modern form based on 2119 that could be: Note: Domain-literals SHOULD NOT be used if a FQDN host name is available. Assuming that FQDN is explained somewhere in the draft. Not in usefor-02 at the moment, so maybe that's better: Note: Domain-literals SHOULD NOT be used if a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) for the host is available. There's no good place for this note, you could insert it instead of the explanation of msg-id-core (unnecessary because you plan to use msg-id instead if msg-id-core) at the end of 3.1.3. 3.1.3 is about msg-id, so that would result in this text: Note: Domain-literals in message IDs and mailbox addresses SHOULD NOT be used if a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) is available. > Aleyei might still say it is really a USEAGE matter. Quoting an essential idea of STD 11 and RfC 2822 is more than only a USEAGE matter. In the case of dynamic IPs or IPs like 127.0.0.1 etc. domain literals can be fundamentally bad. Okay, localhost is not much better. :-) > There is no problem with the path and injection-info. In the > case of injecting agents, at least, they MUST be "mailable" > (i.e. "news@..." or "usenet@..."), though I think this is one > of the bits of draft-13 that Ken has not incorporated into > USEFOR yet. Important, it avoids some potential problems. BTW, in a recent discussion about the definition of Usenet I had some problems to explain why I wouldn't consider a Web forum interface to some newsgroups as a part of Usenet. One idea was to say "if the users can't get the complete article in the format defined by RfC 1036, then it's not Usenet". That would exclude something like groups-beta.google.com (not necessarily the old interface with its output=gplain format and access on Message-IDs). Or did I miss something obvious ? The argument was, that no RfC forbids to use HTTP to transport Usenet articles. > "Duties of a Posting Agent" in my current file is: That's apparently different from usepro-01. Maye you forgot to send usepro-02 to the I-D list, the last IETF I-D is still 01. Okay, I found the 2nd draft: >> Message-IDs like might be a bad idea. > I think such a Message-ID would already breach a > RECOMMENDATION in RFC 2822. But then Agent breaches that > RECOMMENDATION every day :-( . It doesn't use @[b[a\]r] or @[b\[a\]r] or @body.invalid etc. Maybe it's older than RfC 2822. Old software is always a good excuse to ignore any new SHOULD. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0JCVIow040048 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:31:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0JCVIgo040047 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:31:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0JCVBWs039921 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:31:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CrEzI-0005wB-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:31:04 +0100 Received: from c-134-92-210.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.92.210]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:31:04 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-92-210.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:31:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:28:24 +0100 Organization: Lines: 26 Message-ID: <41EE5268.5E67@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E89A46.2020908@isode.com> <41EAC3C6.6214@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-92-210.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: [empty domain literals] > No, I don't "believe" in them, but nothing breaks, so if > RFC2822 is prepared to countenance them, even in > s, we should leave well (or ill) alone. Alexej said "no tight syntax", not "copy all bugs" ;-) But 1* vs. * is not really important. One minor detail is still strange: you excluded ">" because that could confuse very simple parsers. You kept "<" because it's no problem. For domain literals you exclude "]" allowing only "\]", and of course you also exclude "\" allowing only "\\". So far the same idea as for ">". But you also exclude "[" allowing only "\[". That's not strictly necessary, how about adding %d91 "[" to the legal characters in a domain literal ? | address-literal = 1*( %d33-61 / ; for IPv6 see RfC 3513 | %d63-91 / ; printable ASCII | %d94-126 / ; minus ">", "\", "]" | "\\" / "\]" ) ; plus "\\, "\]" Not exactly logical, but the same logic as for "<". Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0I3CWgG014327 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0I3CWAq014326 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0I3CU36014279 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-64-29.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.64.29 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2005 03:12:24 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0I3CFq02324 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:12:15 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20566 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41EADACF.4626@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:13:36 GMT Lines: 94 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41EADACF.4626@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Maybe, but they made a really bad job out of it. You asked >for something in STD 11 about this problem, and I found only: >| A domain-ref must be THE official name of a registry, network, >| or host. It is a symbolic reference, within a name sub- >| domain. At times, it is necessary to bypass standard mechan- >| isms for resolving such references, using more primitive >| information, such as a network host address rather than its >| associated host name. >| To permit such references, this standard provides the domain- >| literal construct. Its contents must conform with the needs >| of the sub-domain in which it is interpreted. I.e. it depends on the network. On the internet, we have IPv[46] at the moment. >| Domain-literals which refer to domains within the ARPA Inter- >| net specify 32-bit Internet addresses, in four 8-bit fields >| noted in decimal, as described in Request for Comments #820, >| "Assigned Numbers." For example: >| [10.0.3.19] The RFC 2822 wording is slightly stronger, if anything; it just doesn't apply (apparently) to and . I would not be averse to a NOTE in USEFOR to emphasize the point, but I don't think we need go beyond that. It is really their problem. And Aleyei might still say it is really a USEAGE matter. >In the times of STD 10 and 11 no problem, they had routes and >return-paths and gateways. If there was a question about b[a]r >they probably could ask postmaster%b[a]r@gateway.example >Now I'm tempted to say somewhere in the draft(s) that a system >using local@[b\[a\]r] in net news should make sure that its >path or injection-info somehow allow to determine the FQDN >gateway.example OTOH that's a bit too esoteric for my taste. There is no problem with the path and injection-info. In the case of injecting agents, at least, they MUST be "mailable" (i.e. "news@..." or "usenet@..."), though I think this is one of the bits of draft-13 that Ken has not incorporated into USEFOR yet. > [From: header] >> Alexei didn't want it covered in USEFOR, so it's now in >> USEPRO (isn't it in the latest draft - it is certainly now in >> my master copy). >I didn't see it in usepro-01. The TLD .invalid stuff is there, >but 2822 obviuously expects valid From: mailbox addresses, and >therefore it might be necessary to mention TLD .invalid in >USEFOR explicitly. At the moment all you have is a pointer to >RfC 2822, is that good enough for the TLD .invalid addresses ? The wording in "Duties of a Posting Agent" in my current file is: Contrary to [RFC 2822], which states that the mailbox(es) in the From header is that of the poster(s), a poster who does not, for whatever reason, wish to use his own mailbox MAY use any mailbox ending in the top level domain ".invalid" [RFC 2606]. AFAIR that was in Usepro-02. >The idea is, or rather I think the idea is, that an address >with domain literal b[a]r must be valid somewhere, and if it's >visible in the Internet (or Usenet), then a gateway for b[a]r >must be known. But TLD .invalid is really invalid, there's no >gateway or MX for an .invalid address. >Valid vs. invalid From: addresses, or valid vs. invalid right >hand sides of Message-IDs are also our problem. When two or >more systems start to create the same Message-IDs or to cancel >articles of the other systems it's relevant for us. The least >we should do is to warn people that there's no such thing as a >"correct" cancel for articles from some@body.invalid, and that >Message-IDs like might be a bad idea. I think such a Message-ID would already breach a RECOMMENDATION in RFC 2822. But then Agent breaches that RECOMMENDATION every day :-( . -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0I3CUlr014313 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0I3CUsO014312 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0I3CTbs014275 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-64-29.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.64.29 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2005 03:12:23 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0I3CDV02316 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:12:13 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20564 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Archive Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C9AFEB.4050902@isode.com> <20041222230155.GA1758@roxel.fqdn.de> <41D34D01.33FD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E88284.70905@isode.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:43:01 GMT Lines: 32 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41E88284.70905@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >>Ah! So you want the Archive header to have provision for a list of >>MIME-style parameters (just like we originally intended for all the news >>headers), but with no specific parameters defined just yet. Then the >>filename parameter can be added later if/when there is a specific need for >>it. >> >>Anyone else happy with that arrangement? I see no problem. >> >> >Not talking about particular syntax for extensions, this sounds fine to me. OK, I think Alexey, Frank and myself would be happy with that, and someone else in this thread seemed to think the possibility of filename parameters might be useful at some later date to the news.answers moderators, but no pressing need for them at this instant. No other comments. Does that mean we have a rough consensus? -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0I3CShZ014291 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0I3CSOn014290 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:28 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0I3CRs2014265 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-64-29.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.64.29 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2005 03:12:21 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0I3CDu02320 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:12:13 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20565 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E89A46.2020908@isode.com> <41EAC3C6.6214@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:47:48 GMT Lines: 21 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41EAC3C6.6214@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >It's essentially the same as the usefor-02 no-fold-literal, the >only difference is 1*(...) instead of *(...) because I don't >believe in empty domain literals. Anything else is cosmetical. No, I don't "believe" in them, but nothing breaks, so if RFC2822 is prepared to countenance them, even in s, we should leave well (or ill) alone. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0GLQY4t016297 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:26:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0GLQYXI016296 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:26:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0GLQWTh016253 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:26:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CqHuq-0001pN-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:26:32 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.126 ([213.191.80.126]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:26:32 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.126 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:26:32 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:21:19 +0100 Organization: Lines: 96 Message-ID: <41EADACF.4626@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.126 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > I need a ruling from the chair to depart from RFC 2822 on a > matter where no problem of interoperability arises (or where > it was a problem that already existed in email). Apparently Alexej likes your idea to allow anything which is not a known problem better than my idea atext / "." / ":" or less, so that's settled, see my reply to Alexej. [b\[a\]r] > Who knows? It might mean something in IPv99, or in some > totally different transport medium. I suppose that is why > both RFC 822 and RFC 2822 left it so wide open. Maybe, but they made a really bad job out of it. You asked for something in STD 11 about this problem, and I found only: | A domain-ref must be THE official name of a registry, network, | or host. It is a symbolic reference, within a name sub- | domain. At times, it is necessary to bypass standard mechan- | isms for resolving such references, using more primitive | information, such as a network host address rather than its | associated host name. | To permit such references, this standard provides the domain- | literal construct. Its contents must conform with the needs | of the sub-domain in which it is interpreted. | Domain-literals which refer to domains within the ARPA Inter- | net specify 32-bit Internet addresses, in four 8-bit fields | noted in decimal, as described in Request for Comments #820, | "Assigned Numbers." For example: | [10.0.3.19] | Note: THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. It | is permitted only as a means of bypassing temporary | system limitations, such as name tables which are not | complete. In other words, don't use domain literals whenever possible. If necessary it must have a meaning within the sub-domain where it's used. For IN it's an IP, but maybe a "bar" network exists where b[a]r has a meaning, the name of an amateur radio station or whatever. In the times of STD 10 and 11 no problem, they had routes and return-paths and gateways. If there was a question about b[a]r they probably could ask postmaster%b[a]r@gateway.example Now I'm tempted to say somewhere in the draft(s) that a system using local@[b\[a\]r] in net news should make sure that its path or injection-info somehow allow to determine the FQDN gateway.example OTOH that's a bit too esoteric for my taste. [From: header] > Alexei didn't want it covered in USEFOR, so it's now in > USEPRO (isn't it in the latest draft - it is certainly now in > my master copy). I didn't see it in usepro-01. The TLD .invalid stuff is there, but 2822 obviuously expects valid From: mailbox addresses, and therefore it might be necessary to mention TLD .invalid in USEFOR explicitly. At the moment all you have is a pointer to RfC 2822, is that good enough for the TLD .invalid addresses ? The idea is, or rather I think the idea is, that an address with domain literal b[a]r must be valid somewhere, and if it's visible in the Internet (or Usenet), then a gateway for b[a]r must be known. But TLD .invalid is really invalid, there's no gateway or MX for an .invalid address. Is user@example.ten a third category ? In theory there could be another domain system, where example.ten makes sense. More probably it's a typo or intentional nonsense. And TLD .invalid is "better" than other invalid addresses, because it's at least obvious. And it's one of the USEFOR ideas which are already "common practice" to a certain degree. Hiding this somewhere deep in USEPRO could be seen as a step backwards. I'm not sure about it, and maybe my interpretation that 2822 "obviously" wants valid addresses is wrong. > essentially a problem for the mail people, not for us. Valid vs. invalid From: addresses, or valid vs. invalid right hand sides of Message-IDs are also our problem. When two or more systems start to create the same Message-IDs or to cancel articles of the other systems it's relevant for us. The least we should do is to warn people that there's no such thing as a "correct" cancel for articles from some@body.invalid, and that Message-IDs like might be a bad idea. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0GJoOLk082976 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:50:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0GJoOBd082974 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:50:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0GJoMFH082890 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:50:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CqGPl-0008Lk-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:50:21 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.126 ([213.191.80.126]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:50:21 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.126 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:50:21 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:43:02 +0100 Organization: Lines: 102 Message-ID: <41EAC3C6.6214@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E89A46.2020908@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.126 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>>| mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") >> I am still waiting for a ruling from our Chair as to whether >> we can make further changes to the RFC 2822 that >> are not required by some absolute technical necessity. > Such changes are outside the scope for the WG and should be > done when RFC 2822 is revised. In particular, we should avoid > temptation to define a tight syntax for "mdomain" - doing so > might hurt USEFOR in the future. Okay, let's sort it out, "mdomain" is IMO just a better name than "id-right" (and "unique" is better than "id-left") for two reasons: 1 - our "id-left" and "id-right" _syntax_ is a proper subset of the 2822-syntax. We want canonical (= unambiguous) msg-ids without NO-WS-CTL for NNTP and the news-URL. 2 - our "id-left" and "id-right" still have the same semantics as 2822, 1036, etc. This semantics is better reflected by "unique" / "mdomain" instead of new "id-left" / "id-right" Only a new name for a necessary change, so that's apparently allowed for you and Charles. You're not necessarily convinced that it's a good idea, but it's not a "political" question. Is that correct so far ? Whatever the future name of the RHS is, "mdomain" or "id-right", we need some syntax for it. Obviously we all want the RfC 2822 dot-atom-text for the normal cases wich are no domain literals: TBD1 = dot-atom-text / ( "[" TBD2 "]" ) For TBD1 insert either id-right or mdomain as the name of this beast. And for TBD2 insert either no-fold-literal or address- literal. Again the name should be no political question, but IMHO it's clearer to say address-literal, the syntax isn't the same as no-fold-literal in 2822. Finally you say that a "tight" syntax for TBD2 is out of scope. That kills any attempt to specify address literals completely, like copying syntax from 2821, 3513, or the old draft trying this (hex. digits plus dot and colon). We apparently all agree that we don't want to define address literals completely, and that's one interpretation of "tight". The next logical step is to enumerate all legal characters in a domain literal without details: 1*( DIGIT / "a" / "b" / "c" / "d" / "e" / "f" / "." / ":" ) My crystal ball tells me that while that's not a complete specification, it's still too "tight" for you, and I also don't like it, it wouldn't allow version tags like ipv6: etc. 1*( atext / "." / ":" ) The same notoriously unreliable crystal ball tells me that you also don't like this, although it's not really "tight". The only proposed alternative is Charles' "maximal" solution: 1*( atext / "." / ":" / "," / ";" / "(" / ")" / "<" / "@" / DQUOTE / "\\" / "\[" / "\]" ) Putting it all together I get this updated syntax for a msg-id: | msg-id = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" | unique = dot-atom-text / ( DQUOTE unique-quote DQUOTE ) | unique-quote = ( "." [unique-part] ) / | ( [unique-part] "." ) / | ( [unique-part] unique-literal [unique-part] ) | unique-part = 1*( atext / "." / unique-literal ) | unique-literal = "(" / ")" / "," / ; all specials, minus ">", | "[" / "]" / "@" / ; minus DQUOTE, minus "\", | ":" / ";" / "<" / ; minus single ".", plus: | ".." / "\\" / ( "\" DQUOTE ) | mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") | address-literal = 1*( %d33-61 / ; printable ASCII minus | %d63-90 / ; ">", "[", "\", "]" | %d94-126 / ; plus "\[", "\\, "\]" | "\[" / "\\" / "\]" ) Can we agree on this very broad syntax for address-literal in a msg-id, or is there still a syntactical (or even political ;-) problem ? If the syntax is fine then the name address-literal instead of no-fold-literal is IMHO justified, because this syntax is much simpler than the "[" *(dtext / quoted-pair) "]" stuff in 2822. It's essentially the same as the usefor-02 no-fold-literal, the only difference is 1*(...) instead of *(...) because I don't believe in empty domain literals. Anything else is cosmetical. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0F4LYJx094125 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:21:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0F4LX2x094116 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:21:33 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0F4LWNY094058 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:21:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (alb-24-194-5-169.nycap.rr.com [24.194.5.169]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:21:28 +0000 Message-ID: <41E89A46.2020908@isode.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:21:26 -0500 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: msg-id References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: >In <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: > > >>Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> >>| msg-id-core = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" >>| mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") >> >> > >I am still waiting for a ruling from our Chair as to whether we can make >further changes to the RFC 2822 that are not required by some >absolute technical necessity. > > Such changes are outside the scope for the WG and should be done when RFC 2822 is revised. In particular, we should avoid temptation to define a tight syntax for "mdomain" - doing so might hurt USEFOR in the future. >And it would be nice to hear also from other WG members as to whether they >approve of these further changes that you are suggesting. > > Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0F2eKCQ005081 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:40:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0F2eKvj005080 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:40:20 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0F2eJvm004917 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:40:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (alb-24-194-5-169.nycap.rr.com [24.194.5.169]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:40:08 +0000 Message-ID: <41E88284.70905@isode.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:40:04 -0500 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Archive References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C9AFEB.4050902@isode.com> <20041222230155.GA1758@roxel.fqdn.de> <41D34D01.33FD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: >In <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: > > >>Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> >>>I don't really see what point you are trying to make, or what >>>you find wrong with my words "future use, and also to allow >>>future extensions to add further parameters". >>> >>> >>You say: We need filename for further parameters. I say: No, >>opt-parameter-list could do this trick without a filename. The >>point is that I'm against the filename, and maybe Bruce also >>doesn't like it: >> >> > >Ah! So you want the Archive header to have provision for a list of >MIME-style parameters (just like we originally intended for all the news >headers), but with no specific parameters defined just yet. Then the >filename parameter can be added later if/when there is a specific need for >it. > >Anyone else happy with that arrangement? I see no problem. > > Not talking about particular syntax for extensions, this sounds fine to me. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0EHCYNq038439 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0EHCYwj038438 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0EHCXlL038422 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-70-52.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.70.52 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2005 17:12:27 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0EHCIW25932 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:12:18 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20559 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E422D3.5FA6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:04:22 GMT Lines: 99 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> (ruling from the Chair still awaited) >Something is odd if you need "higher" authorities to define the >essence of net news, i.e. Message-ID. I still think that's our >job. Of course Alexej could help us (add tin[wuo] as needed) >if we'd confuse Message-IDs with say message digests or UUIDs. >The proposed UUID standard was checked by the A-D. I need a ruling from the chair to depart from RFC 2822 on a matter where no problem of interoperability arises (or where it was a problem that already existed in email). >Only syntactically legal, but it's a strictly invalid domain >literal b[a]r >No version of IP and no notation for IPs allows b[ar]r, what's >it supposed to mean as either IPv4 or IPv6 ? Who knows? It might mean something in IPv99, or in some totally different transport medium. I suppose that is why both RFC 822 and RFC 2822 left it so wide open. >It's definitely illegal as the RHS of a From: mailbox in net >news, the only allowed invalid RHS is something ending in "TLD" >.invalid, as the name says. >That important bit of information didn't make it from the last >complete draft to the new split stuff, but it's clear in 2822 >(3.6.2). IMNSHO you should add this explicitly to the split >drafts: Yes. Alexei didn't want it covered in USEFOR, so it's now in USEPRO (isn't it in the latest draft - it is certainly now in my master copy). It's not the only thing still missing from USEFOR. >Back to your example, From: is illegal. Reason: >| The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message, that >| is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible >| for the writing of the message. >That's what 2822 says in section 3.6.2, and therefore it's also >relevant for the split drafts. So why is it allowed in 822 and 2822? Presumably to allow for future transport arrangements where it might be meaningful. But it is essentially a problem for the mail people, not for us. >> I want a subset of the RFC 2822 syntax, with the same name >> and the same semantics >You really want a new meaning for the RHS in the case of address >literals, your idea is not the same as in all Internet standards. >Let's take the stuff you found in an old draft, with hex. digits >etc. My proposal atext / "." / ":" was obviously much too broad >to avoid this confusion. >> I see nothing in RFC 822 which says that. AFAICS, RFC 822 >> allows URNs, SSNs and all other nonsense in , >> just like RFC 2822 does. >| An addr-spec is a specific Internet identifier that contains a >| locally interpreted string followed by the at-sign character >| ("@", ASCII value 64) followed by an Internet domain. >[...] >| In the domain-literal form, the domain is interpreted as the >| literal Internet address of the particular host. In both >| cases, how addressing is used and how messages are >| transported to a particular host is covered in the mail >| transport document [RFC2821]. These mechanisms are outside >| of the scope of this document. But those words are not in RFC 822, as you implied. OK, I now see them in RFC 2822, but they are still indicating that it is up to the transport document to state the precise interpretation. But those words do at least give you a case for saying that there is a bug in RFC 2822, insofar as it did not apply that wording to no-fold-literals. But then, I still don't think it is our job to fix bugs in RFC 2822, but again you can appeal to our Chair on that. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0DMlVJZ061735 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:47:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0DMlVHH061734 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:47:31 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from gundel.de.clara.net (gundel.de.clara.net [212.82.225.86]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0DMlTJR061717 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:47:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de) Received: from [212.82.251.146] (helo=xyzzy) by gundel.de.clara.net with smtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1CpDx1-0001Wk-M7 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:00:24 +0100 Message-ID: <41E6E701.7F66@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:24:17 +0100 From: Frank Ellermann Organization: X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: msg-id References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E422D3.5FA6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: >> 2822 id-left, id-right, and no-fold-literal are different, >> we want to _replace_ them completely by the original (1036 >> and 2822 addr-spec) concepts unique, mdomain, and >> address-literal. > No we (tinw) don't. Maybe you do Yes, I want based on 822, 1036, s-o-1036, and the msg-id semantics of 2822. BTW, we just got a new proposed standard with a completely different concept of unique IDs: Announced in today, it's based on unique MAC addresses and UTC timestamps (100 nano- second steps since Oct 15 1582) with provisions to use random numbers and / or parts of MD5 / SHA1 hashes where this doesn't work directly. Incl. ways to use an FQDN instead of a MAC address. Fascinating stuff, but less convincing than our - oops, "my" - concept of if two parties use one of the MAC surrogates and generate duplicates. With "my" concept it's at least clear who owns the name space (= RHS). > nobody else seems to want to Except from STD 11, 1036, and s-o-1036 maybe. Message-IDs are not really "my" idea. > (ruling from the Chair still awaited) Something is odd if you need "higher" authorities to define the essence of net news, i.e. Message-ID. I still think that's our job. Of course Alexej could help us (add tin[wuo] as needed) if we'd confuse Message-IDs with say message digests or UUIDs. The proposed UUID standard was checked by the A-D. > please bear in mind that we would still have the possibility > of those "funny" literals in s, as in > From: foo@[b\[a\]r] > which is still legal (though maybe nonsensical) in both RFC > 2822 and in our draft. Only syntactically legal, but it's a strictly invalid domain literal b[a]r No version of IP and no notation for IPs allows b[ar]r, what's it supposed to mean as either IPv4 or IPv6 ? If more than one system tries to create Message-IDs with RHS [b\[a\]r] they are lost. It's definitely illegal as the RHS of a From: mailbox in net news, the only allowed invalid RHS is something ending in "TLD" .invalid, as the name says. That important bit of information didn't make it from the last complete draft to the new split stuff, but it's clear in 2822 (3.6.2). IMNSHO you should add this explicitly to the split drafts: | The From-header contains the electronic address(es), and | possibly the full name, of the article's poster(s That's 1036, you already had a better version covering more than one mailbox and the TLD .invalid stuff, Who deleted this when and why from the new split drafts ? Back to your example, From: is illegal. Reason: | The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message, that | is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible | for the writing of the message. That's what 2822 says in section 3.6.2, and therefore it's also relevant for the split drafts. IMHO you can't do it with this inheritance trick. RfC 2822 doesn't allow TLD .invalid for an intentionally invalid mailbox. > I want a subset of the RFC 2822 syntax, with the same name > and the same semantics Okay, that should reduce our differences to the names and the proper subset of the syntax. But if that's so, why do you think that b[a]r is a "legal" domain literal ? It's illegal. >> I want the 2822 semantics with a new syntax and an obvious >> name address-literal. IPv4, IPv6, or IPvX are fine. But >> URNs, SSNs, or other stuff in square brackets won't do as >> RHS of a msg-id. > Why ever not? They are currently allowed (though maybe stupid) > in the RHS of an and they are currently allowed > (in RFC 2822) in the RHS of a . They are not allowed as RHS of addr-spec and msg-id, they are no valid domain literals. Nobody "owns" an IP b[a]r, you can't ask the owner when there are problems with these b[a]r constructs. You really want a new meaning for the RHS in the case of address literals, your idea is not the same as in all Internet standards. Let's take the stuff you found in an old draft, with hex. digits etc. My proposal atext / "." / ":" was obviously much too broad to avoid this confusion. > I see nothing in RFC 822 which says that. AFAICS, RFC 822 > allows URNs, SSNs and all other nonsense in , > just like RFC 2822 does. | An addr-spec is a specific Internet identifier that contains a | locally interpreted string followed by the at-sign character | ("@", ASCII value 64) followed by an Internet domain. [...] | In the domain-literal form, the domain is interpreted as the | literal Internet address of the particular host. In both | cases, how addressing is used and how messages are | transported to a particular host is covered in the mail | transport document [RFC2821]. These mechanisms are outside | of the scope of this document. Without looking I'm absolutely sure that RfC 2821 or STD 10 have no idea how to transport a message from or to a UUID, SSN, URN, or what else. > AFAICS, we DO stick to the STD 11 meaning of a domain-literal. No, the UUID, b[a]r, URN, ICBM, etc. stuff is fascinating, but it's not in STD 11 / 10 or RfC 2822 / 2821, let alone RfC 1036. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0CCCcFR083842 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:12:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0CCCcXv083837 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:12:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0CCCbhR083548 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:12:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-158.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.158 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Jan 2005 12:12:32 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j0CCCEY06394 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:12:14 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20557 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41E422D3.5FA6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:57:36 GMT Lines: 82 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41E422D3.5FA6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >But 2822 id-left, id-right, and no-fold-literal are different, >we want to _replace_ them completely by the original (1036 and >2822 addr-spec) concepts unique, mdomain, and address-literal. No we (tinw) don't. Maybe you do, but nobody else seems to want to, and I am not sure that our remit allows us to (ruling from the Chair still awaited). And please bear in mind that we would still have the possibility of those "funny" literals in s, as in From: foo@[b\[a\]r] which is still legal (though maybe nonsensical) in both RFC 2822 and in our draft. >Now please correct me if I got this wrong, but apparently you >want a new semantics with a new syntax and the old 2822 name, >essentially "anything in square brackets minus >, [, ], and \ >goes, adding \[, \], and \\". URN, SSN, ICBM, IPv4, or IPv6, >anything in square brackets is possible, as long as the result >together with the LHS and "@" is a unique string. No, I want a subset of the RFC 2822 syntax, with the same name and the same semantics, just like we did for (almost) and . >I want the 2822 semantics with a new syntax and an obvious name >address-literal. IPv4, IPv6, or IPvX are fine. But URNs, SSNs, >or other stuff in square brackets won't do as RHS of a msg-id. Why ever not? They are currently allowed (though maybe stupid) in the RHS of an and they are currently allowed (in RFC 2822) in the RHS of a . >1036 mumbles something about 822: >| In order to conform to RFC-822, the Message-ID must have the >| format: >822 simply says (not in this order): >| msg-id = "<" addr-spec ">" ; Unique message id >| addr-spec = local-part "@" domain ; global address >| domain = sub-domain *("." sub-domain) >| sub-domain = domain-ref / domain-literal >| domain-literal = "[" *(dtext / quoted-pair) "]" >1036 somehow managed to inherit the concept "domain-literal" >from 822, and this 822 "domain-literal" is a close relative of >the "no-fold-literal" in 2822. Minus the folding and other >problems in 822. >STD 11 (822) is also very clear about the meaning and the usage >of domain literals, they are _not_ arbitrary stuff in square >brackets. And they are exceptions, the normal case is what we >know as FQDN. I see nothing in RFC 822 which says that. AFAICS, RFC 822 allows URNs, SSNs and all other nonsense in , just like RFC 2822 does. >> it is our Chair that you have to convince, not me. >First of all I want to convince you that we better stick to the >STD 11 meaning of a domain-literal, even if it appears in an >obscure place like the RHS of a msg-id. AFAICS, we DO stick to the STD 11 meaning of a domain-literal. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0BJA2CL049801 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:10:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j0BJA2Nx049800 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:10:02 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0BJ9vpX049765 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:09:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CoROy-0005aU-00 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:10:00 +0100 Received: from a077202.dialin.hansenet.de ([213.191.77.202]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:10:00 +0100 Received: from nobody by a077202.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:10:00 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:02:44 +0100 Organization: Lines: 120 Message-ID: <41E422D3.5FA6@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: a077202.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: [ vs. ] > You agreed yesterday we should define our own rather > than the ugly , even though it isn't an exact > plugin replacement. Yes, as an exception. What we really want there is to _update_ the existing 2822 msg-id syntax (without explicitly saying so). But 2822 id-left, id-right, and no-fold-literal are different, we want to _replace_ them completely by the original (1036 and 2822 addr-spec) concepts unique, mdomain, and address-literal. > On the same grounds, it is proper to use and > with our more restricted syntax (because they > _are_ plugin replacements). That would obscure the 1036 and 2822 semantics "like addr-spec, only unique and no CFWS": | the msg-id has a similar syntax to angle-addr (identical | except that comments and folding white space are not | allowed) That's a quote from 2822, they really wanted to get this right. Somewhere in the mazes of CFWS, obs-id-left, and obs-id-right they dropped the ball and invented the new names id-left and id-right. The "real" idea of a msg-id is and not some arbitrary . > we have agreed to chop out the NO-WS-CTL, because it > conflicts with NNTP. Yes, and for the same reason we agreed to remove all redundant (unnecessary) quoted strings and quoted-pairs, and to guarantee unambiguous (canonical) Message-IDs w.r.t. the LHS (= unique). We're also ready for a normal FQDN as RHS, because that's the same dot-atom-text (minus obs-id-right = domain) as in 2822. We're not yet ready with the remaining case of a domain literal as RHS. You want an anonymous "no-fold-literal" (same name as in 2822, but a different syntax), I prefer "address-literal" (syntax and name different from 2822, but identical semantics). Now please correct me if I got this wrong, but apparently you want a new semantics with a new syntax and the old 2822 name, essentially "anything in square brackets minus >, [, ], and \ goes, adding \[, \], and \\". URN, SSN, ICBM, IPv4, or IPv6, anything in square brackets is possible, as long as the result together with the LHS and "@" is a unique string. I want the 2822 semantics with a new syntax and an obvious name address-literal. IPv4, IPv6, or IPvX are fine. But URNs, SSNs, or other stuff in square brackets won't do as RHS of a msg-id. That would be a major difference. No wonder that we don't find the same syntax for this beast. >> ask for address-literal = atext / "." / ":" >> Let the inventors of IPvFuture decide what they want when >> they start their future work, it's not our business. > That's just adding a third conflicting syntax, which helps > nobody. There will be _four_ versions whatever you do: 2821, 2822, and 2396bis plus either your no-fold-literal (not the same as 2822) or one of my address-literal proposals (2822 semantics). The address-literal = atext / "." / ":" is the minimum to get away with, your syntax is the maximum. >> Your versions of 1036 and s-o-1036 are very different from >> my versions, I have full_domain_name (1036) and domain >> (s-o-1036). > Neither of which allows IP addresses at all, and yet they are > commonly used. 1036 mumbles something about 822: | In order to conform to RFC-822, the Message-ID must have the | format: 822 simply says (not in this order): | msg-id = "<" addr-spec ">" ; Unique message id | addr-spec = local-part "@" domain ; global address | domain = sub-domain *("." sub-domain) | sub-domain = domain-ref / domain-literal | domain-literal = "[" *(dtext / quoted-pair) "]" 1036 somehow managed to inherit the concept "domain-literal" from 822, and this 822 "domain-literal" is a close relative of the "no-fold-literal" in 2822. Minus the folding and other problems in 822. STD 11 (822) is also very clear about the meaning and the usage of domain literals, they are _not_ arbitrary stuff in square brackets. And they are exceptions, the normal case is what we know as FQDN. > it is our Chair that you have to convince, not me. First of all I want to convince you that we better stick to the STD 11 meaning of a domain-literal, even if it appears in an obscure place like the RHS of a msg-id. If we could agree on this part, then it's only consequent to use a clear name like address-literal for it instead of overloading no-fold-literal with your new syntax. And with a proper name it's obvious that we could use any new syntax not causing immediate problems with NNTP, IPv6, 2396bis, or the news URL. You found the maximal solution, I found the opposite, and if you'd call the result "address-literal", then the syntax isn't the most important issue. I'm much more interested in the meaning. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j07HCmYK001431 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:12:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j07HCmUa001430 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:12:48 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j07HClLY001099 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:12:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-70-176.midband.mdip.bt.net ([81.144.70.176]) by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.165) id 41dec304.4122.38 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:12:36 +0000 (envelope-sender ) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j07HCDM25310 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:12:13 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20555 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:19:14 GMT Lines: 80 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: > >>>| msg-id-core = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" >>>| mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") > >> I am still waiting for a ruling from our Chair as to whether >> we can make further changes to the RFC 2822 >The quoted part is already okay, only different names instead >of a redefined id-left / id-right / no-fold-literal. Whatever >the "political" difficulties might be, using RfC 2822 names for >a different USEFOR syntax would be too confusing. Not so. We have used it for (because it applies everywhere that RFC 2822 uses ). You agreed yesterday we should define our own rather than the ugly , even though it isn't an exact plugin replacement. On the same grounds, it is proper to use and with our more restricted syntax (because they _are_ plugin replacements). >> What you say may be highly desirable >Actually I don't like "(" and ")" within address-literals, but >the 2396bis IPvFuture allows it, and IPvFuture is better than >the 2821 General-Address-Literal with its 2822 NO-WS-CTL... :-( But we have agreed to chop out the NO-WS-CTL, because it conflicts with NNTP. >> the practical politics just does not work like that. >I'm interested what "practical IETF politics" has to say about >hypothetical future address literals in two conflicting syntax >versions, and their appearance in today's Message-IDs. That's not our problem. Currently we encompass (modulo NO-WS-CTL and quoted-pair differnences) all known versions. >Now that you insist on Alexey's crystal ball we should actually >ask for address-literal = atext / "." / ":". Let the inventors >of IPvFuture decide what they want when they start their future >work, it's not our business. That's just adding a third conflicting syntax, which helps nobody. > [RHS of Message-IDs is a domain or domain-literal] >>> The SHOULD in 2822 and mail is a MUST in news. >> No, it is NOT a "MUST" in news. It is exactly the same as in >> RFC 2822, namely it MUST be globally unique, and you can do >> that however you like, but here is a RECOMMENDED method. >Your versions of 1036 and s-o-1036 are very different from my >versions, I have full_domain_name (1036) and domain (s-o-1036). Neither of which allows IP addresses at all, and yet they are commonly used. >I have no objection if you insist on adding domain literals (in >the form of address literals, no CFWS etc.) to this concept. >But I strongly disagree with adding "whatever you like as RHS". Our remit is to follow RFC 2822 wherever possible, which means their version if . If you want to do something different than that, then it is our Chair that you have to convince, not me. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j06GDjYZ079039 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 08:13:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j06GDjkK079038 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 08:13:45 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j06GDd6e078965 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 08:13:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CmaGV-00035u-00 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:13:35 +0100 Received: from c-134-89-53.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.89.53]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:13:35 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-89-53.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:13:35 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:09:44 +0100 Organization: Lines: 99 Message-ID: <41DD62C8.234@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-89-53.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: >>| msg-id-core = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" >>| mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") > I am still waiting for a ruling from our Chair as to whether > we can make further changes to the RFC 2822 The quoted part is already okay, only different names instead of a redefined id-left / id-right / no-fold-literal. Whatever the "political" difficulties might be, using RfC 2822 names for a different USEFOR syntax would be too confusing. > What you say may be highly desirable Actually I don't like "(" and ")" within address-literals, but the 2396bis IPvFuture allows it, and IPvFuture is better than the 2821 General-Address-Literal with its 2822 NO-WS-CTL... :-( > the practical politics just does not work like that. I'm interested what "practical IETF politics" has to say about hypothetical future address literals in two conflicting syntax versions, and their appearance in today's Message-IDs. Now that you insist on Alexey's crystal ball we should actually ask for address-literal = atext / "." / ":". Let the inventors of IPvFuture decide what they want when they start their future work, it's not our business. We know that we don't want NO-WS-CTL, redundant quoted-pairs, or ">". atext / "." / ":" are good enough for IPv4 and IPv6. Among the potential problems avoided by atext / "." / ":" are - no ">" and NO-WS-CTL, excluding "<" is only consequent - no "\" and quoted-pairs, automatically canonical for NNTP - "[" and "]" are clear, no problem with "\[", "\[", "\\" - no "(" and no ")", no possible confusion with comments - no ";", broken parsers looking for MIME parameters survive - no DQUOTE, broken parsers looking for quoted strings within address literals survive (it's also not allowed in 2396bis) - no "@", good for the news URL, also not allowed in 2396bis Char.s in this syntax but not in 2396bis [1]: "%" / "#" / "?" / "/" / "{" / "|" / "}" / "^" / "`" Char.s in 2396bis but not in this syntax [2]: "," / ";" / "(" / ")" Char.s in your no-fold-literal but not in this syntax: "," / ";" / "(" / ")" / "<" / "@" / DQUOTE / "\\" / "\[" / "\]" Char.s in your no-fold-literal but not in 2396bis: "%" / "#" / "?" / "/" / "{" / "|" / "}" / "^" / "`" / "<" / "@" / DQUOTE / "\\" / "\[" / "\]" [1]: IPvFuture has no "{" / "|" / "}" / "^" / "`" I have no idea why, these characters aren't mentioned in 2396bis (?) [2]: No convincing reason why my syntax excludes "," (comma) [RHS of Message-IDs is a domain or domain-literal] >> The SHOULD in 2822 and mail is a MUST in news. > No, it is NOT a "MUST" in news. It is exactly the same as in > RFC 2822, namely it MUST be globally unique, and you can do > that however you like, but here is a RECOMMENDED method. Your versions of 1036 and s-o-1036 are very different from my versions, I have full_domain_name (1036) and domain (s-o-1036). I have no objection if you insist on adding domain literals (in the form of address literals, no CFWS etc.) to this concept. But I strongly disagree with adding "whatever you like as RHS". If 2822 wanted SSNs, URLs, ISBNs, and other stuff - and I doubt this - then it's wrong. We have one RHS concept that's well understood, the domain. Anything else is untested and could cause major trouble. If you want say URNs as RHS of Message-IDs please do so in an experimental RfC, but not in the "grandson" of a memo clearly saying full_domain_name. With a domain the authority for all created Message-IDs is clear. With an URN as RHS I've no idea what to do if two systems create identical Message-IDs claiming that the other system abuses their namespace. Who is the owner of an URN ? > as is well known, Agent does not do it, either for mail or > for news. This software uses a dot-atom-text in the form of a domain, and to find the relevant authority I need nothing more exotic than DNS or maybe whois. It certainly doesn't use address literals, let alone URNs or avian carrier licenses in square brackets. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j05HChdW012589 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:12:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j05HCh59012587 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:12:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.196]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j05HCgVu012459 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:12:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-77-251.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.77.251 with poptime) by smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jan 2005 17:12:29 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j05HCDx07056 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:12:13 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20553 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:04:43 GMT Lines: 54 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >| msg-id-core = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" >| mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") I am still waiting for a ruling from our Chair as to whether we can make further changes to the RFC 2822 that are not required by some absolute technical necessity. And it would be nice to hear also from other WG members as to whether they approve of these further changes that you are suggesting. >If we're unable to agree on a concept for Message-IDs in news, >then nobody else can do in a hypothetical 2822bis. It's the >one thing where net news is the final authority, not RfC 2822. What you say may be highly desirable, but the practical politics just does not work like that. >| Since the msg-id has a similar syntax to angle-addr >| (identical except that comments and folding white space are >| not allowed), a good method is to put the domain name (or a >| domain literal IP address) of the host on which the message >| identifier was created on the right hand side of the "@" >[...] >| Though other algorithms will work, it is RECOMMENDED that the >| right hand side contain some domain identifier (either of the >| host itself or otherwise) such that the generator of the >| message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness of the left >| hand side within the scope of that domain. >The SHOULD in 2822 and mail is a MUST in news. No, it is NOT a "MUST" in news. It is exactly the same as in RFC 2822, namely it MUST be globally unique, and you can do that however you like, but here is a RECOMMENDED method. And, as is well known, Agent does not do it, either for mail or for news. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04JFN6q023892 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:15:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j04JFNEg023891 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:15:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04JFLP6023863 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:15:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Clu9N-0006gv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:15:25 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.78 ([212.82.251.78]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:15:24 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.78 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:15:24 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Archive Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:14:40 +0100 Organization: Lines: 11 Message-ID: <41DAEB20.4F0F@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C9AFEB.4050902@isode.com> <20041222230155.GA1758@roxel.fqdn.de> <41D34D01.33FD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.78 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > Archive: yes; copyright-restriction="" Yes, that's better, or maybe Archive: no; permission=... I used X-NoArchive: yes when deja.news was really new for some time, but today I'm lost. Generally I've no problem with news archives, quite the contrary. I hate it if commercial sites (ab)use newsgroups as support forum. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04IxIce004505 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:59:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j04IxIsS004504 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:59:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04IxGw0004441 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:59:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Clttn-0005WJ-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:59:19 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.78 ([212.82.251.78]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:59:19 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.78 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:59:19 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:54:33 +0100 Organization: Lines: 104 Message-ID: <41DAE669.21F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.78 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > All the world and his dog are giving a conflicting syntax for > , and I do not think we want to get involved. The quoted 2396bis text was about IPvFuture. That's a superset of IPv6 and IPv4 address literals. 2396bis also has the "real" IPv6 address literals, it's the same as in 3513 and 2373. Of course we don't want to get involved. We only need the set of legal characters between "". And somebody already solved this problem for us in 2396bis, the solution is perfect for our purposes, no ambiguous quoted-pairs, no DQUOTE, no ">", no "]", no "[". It's much better than 2822, because we can't use 2822. > Just leave it as RFC 2822 has it, with only the essentual > technical changes. Your rules to get rid of ambiguous quoted-pairs are not simple enough. It starts with the wrong terms: "id-right" is defined in 2822, if we must have something else, then it should be as in 1036 and its son a "domain". But 2822 has its own "domain", therefore let's take "mdomain". Dito a 2822 "no-fold-literal" is not good enough for us, let's use "address-literal", result: | msg-id-core = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" | mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") Now all we need is an enumeration of legal characters in this address-literal: | address-literal = 1*( atext / "." / ":" / | "," / ";" / "(" / ")" ) That's already more than 2396bis allows for _future_ literals, because they can't have "@", "#", "/", "?", and "%". atext + 6 is 87, 128 - 34 is 94, 7 char.s are still bad in this version and 2396bis: DQUOTE, "\", "[", "]", "<", ">", "@". You want 90 legal characters adding DQUOTE, "@", and "<", plus three quoted-pairs "\[", "\]", and "\\". Still excluding ">". IMHO "\" (in quoted-pairs) and DQUOTE are very bad ideas, and if ">" must be excluded then a remaining "<" is rather useless. So for this round of the bargain I offer "@", as long as there is at least one "@" for the news URL I don't care about any further "@" in future address literals. It's of course utter dubious in the "authority" part of an URI, therefore 2396bis doesn't allow it. But we're talking about Message-IDs. > much less aggro when the time for RFC 2822bis comes. If we're unable to agree on a concept for Message-IDs in news, then nobody else can do in a hypothetical 2822bis. It's the one thing where net news is the final authority, not RfC 2822. > I didn't invent id-left and id-right. RFC 2822 did that. The collective "you" as stated in the credits of RfC 2822 did this, the explanation is even mentioned in the text: | Since the msg-id has a similar syntax to angle-addr | (identical except that comments and folding white space are | not allowed), a good method is to put the domain name (or a | domain literal IP address) of the host on which the message | identifier was created on the right hand side of the "@" [...] | Though other algorithms will work, it is RECOMMENDED that the | right hand side contain some domain identifier (either of the | host itself or otherwise) such that the generator of the | message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness of the left | hand side within the scope of that domain. The SHOULD in 2822 and mail is a MUST in news. In net news the Message-ID is _essential_ for interoperability, and if somebody has a cute idea to do something else he will go through the pains of writing his own IESG approved amendment to 1036, its son, and its grandson. >> You can't say that the right part of an addr-spec supports >> SSNs, URLs, ISBNs, or other nonsense in square brackets. >> It's either a dot-atom-text or an address literal, nothing >> else. > On the contrary, RFC 2822 allows all of those things in the > part of an RfC 2822 is irrelevant for Message-IDs, proven by the cases of ambiguous quoted-pairs and illegal NO-WS-CTL. Now let's do it right, that's the very minimum a future 2822bis author expects from a net news standard, they (= we) should know Message-IDs. > it would be entriely wrong fo forbid them in an . That's not the case. The RHS of a Message-ID is a domain as stated in 1036 and s-o-1036, anything else is wrong, address literals are already a huge concession. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04HCuA3097163 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:12:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j04HCuvh097162 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:12:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-2.gradwell.net (lon-mail-2.gradwell.net [193.111.201.126]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04HCpOO097127 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:12:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-65-14.midband.mdip.bt.net ([81.144.65.14]) by lon-mail-2.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.164) id 41dace8f.23b2.4e for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:12:47 +0000 (envelope-sender ) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j04HCSt21969 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:12:28 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20550 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: FWS problem Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41AFCB04.4BC1@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41BD7D35.7239@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41BF26EF.33A2@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41C2B9FA.4A6B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41C77B78.6EBD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CAC8D6.1D57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D373A4.5E28@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D593A7.5D5F@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D9FBED.7C12@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:37:07 GMT Lines: 47 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41D9FBED.7C12@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> [CFWS] should appear as normal in the Control header. That is >> a mistake in USEFOR (cf draft-13), because the WG never asked >> for comments to be disallowed in Control (the performance-hit >> argument would clearly not apply). >Control: cancel / Supersedes; >are common cases, and if an implementation has a problem with >[CFWS] in an ordinary Message-ID: then why are >Control: cancel / Supersedes: less critical ? The problem is not with [CFWS] surrounding a as such, but with transit servers which need to extract the Message-ID header from _every_ message passing through them, and for which ignoring any comment that might be present would be a significant performance hit. That just is not true of the Control and Supersedes headers, which are only of interest to serving agents and which, when detected, are hived off to a separate piece of code which can deconstruct them at leisure (since they form only a small proportion of the overall article count). Note that there is still a generic "SHOULD NOT generate yet" for all comments in News headers that were not known in the days of 1036, but to be fully compliant software MUST eventually be able to accept and ignore them, since they are a general property of _all_ headers. The only exceptions are the few that would slow down those transit servers too much, where we have agreed a permanent ban on them. >BTW, s-o-1036 allows a msg-id-list in Control: cancel, but you >stick to 1036 allowing only one msg-id, is this what you want ? That was a quirk of s-o-1036 and of CNews which was not implemented anywhere else. The WG discussed and rejected the idea I don't know how many years ago. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04HCkpN097134 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:12:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j04HCk5R097133 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:12:46 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j04HCjum097117 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:12:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-65-14.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.65.14 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2005 17:12:26 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j04CCK119519 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:12:20 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20549 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Archive Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C9AFEB.4050902@isode.com> <20041222230155.GA1758@roxel.fqdn.de> <41D34D01.33FD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:03:55 GMT Lines: 56 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> I don't really see what point you are trying to make, or what >> you find wrong with my words "future use, and also to allow >> future extensions to add further parameters". >You say: We need filename for further parameters. I say: No, >opt-parameter-list could do this trick without a filename. The >point is that I'm against the filename, and maybe Bruce also >doesn't like it: Ah! So you want the Archive header to have provision for a list of MIME-style parameters (just like we originally intended for all the news headers), but with no specific parameters defined just yet. Then the filename parameter can be added later if/when there is a specific need for it. Anyone else happy with that arrangement? I see no problem. > and > (6.) >>> maybe also the token ? I could then write >>> Archive: creativecommons.org_licenses_by-nc-sa_2.0_de >> Eh? >A MIME token can't be an URL, therefore I replaced / by _ in > and >(ab)used the result as "copyright notice" instead of the token >"No" in Archive: No But why would you want a URL as a token? Tokens are keywords to introduce parameters, as in some-token = "some value" There is no reason at all why a URL should not appear in the value part of a parameter, though is would usually have to be quoted. I think what you were trying to achieve would be more like: Archive: yes; copyright-restriction="" -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j042EKhF070033 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:14:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j042EKvl070024 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:14:20 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from gundel.de.clara.net (gundel.de.clara.net [212.82.225.86]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j042EHpN069980 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:14:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de) Received: from [212.82.251.228] (helo=xyzzy) by gundel.de.clara.net with smtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1CleQ3-00026k-U1 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 03:27:36 +0100 Message-ID: <41D9FBED.7C12@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 03:14:05 +0100 From: Frank Ellermann Organization: X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: FWS problem References: <41AFCB04.4BC1@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41BD7D35.7239@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41BF26EF.33A2@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41C2B9FA.4A6B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41C77B78.6EBD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CAC8D6.1D57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D373A4.5E28@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D593A7.5D5F@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > [CFWS] should appear as normal in the Control header. That is > a mistake in USEFOR (cf draft-13), because the WG never asked > for comments to be disallowed in Control (the performance-hit > argument would clearly not apply). Control: cancel / Supersedes; are common cases, and if an implementation has a problem with [CFWS] in an ordinary Message-ID: then why are Control: cancel / Supersedes: less critical ? BTW, s-o-1036 allows a msg-id-list in Control: cancel, but you stick to 1036 allowing only one msg-id, is this what you want ? [remove the single instance of "msg-id"] > You may have a point there, but there is the problem that we > use all over the place in the semantics, and most of > those now need to be . So probably better to > s/msg-id-core/msg-id/ throughout, and give the necessary > [CFWS], CFWS or [FWS] explicitly in the syntax in the > relevant headers. Yes, that's a good idea. Normally I hate it when you redefine a 2822 term instead of introducing a new term, but in this case it's a feature: Your msg-id = msg-id-core is in fact the real thing, and we want it to replace msg-id also in 2822 (of course without explicitly saying so ;-) Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04018gM070957 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:01:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j04018l4070956 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:01:08 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j04016lI070834 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:01:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Clc8H-0002bA-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 01:01:05 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.228 ([212.82.251.228]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 01:01:04 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.228 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 01:01:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Archive Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:56:38 +0100 Organization: Lines: 28 Message-ID: <41D9DBB6.3F14@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C9AFEB.4050902@isode.com> <20041222230155.GA1758@roxel.fqdn.de> <41D34D01.33FD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.228 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Archive: creativecommons.org_licenses_by-nc-sa_2.0_de Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > I don't really see what point you are trying to make, or what > you find wrong with my words "future use, and also to allow > future extensions to add further parameters". You say: We need filename for further parameters. I say: No, opt-parameter-list could do this trick without a filename. The point is that I'm against the filename, and maybe Bruce also doesn't like it: and (6.) >> maybe also the token ? I could then write >> Archive: creativecommons.org_licenses_by-nc-sa_2.0_de > Eh? A MIME token can't be an URL, therefore I replaced / by _ in and (ab)used the result as "copyright notice" instead of the token "No" in Archive: No That's what users normally expect if they use X-NoArchive: Yes Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j03HDAUs037245 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j03HDArR037242 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-2.gradwell.net (lon-mail-2.gradwell.net [193.111.201.126]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j03HD0FT037186 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-66-214.midband.mdip.bt.net ([81.144.66.214]) by lon-mail-2.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.163) id 41d97d15.2659.22 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:12:53 +0000 (envelope-sender ) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j03HCT511599 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:12:29 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20543 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Archive Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C9AFEB.4050902@isode.com> <20041222230155.GA1758@roxel.fqdn.de> <41D34D01.33FD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:37:22 GMT Lines: 46 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41D5A71A.118B@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >No, I still don't like the filename parameter. You said that >the purposes is (quote) "its possible future use, and also to >allow future extensions to add further parameters". >RfC 3834 found a solution for the latter. RFC 3834 found exactly the same solution that we are proposing for Archive and Injction-Info. Yes, the present wording in USEFOR is not clear and needs more work, and maybe RFC 3834 will provide some suitable wording. So I don't really see what point you are trying to make, or what you find wrong with my words "future use, and also to allow future extensions to add further parameters". > You could copy its >opt-parameter-list + explanation to Archive and Injection-Info >if you like it. Not the token, and maybe you could manage to >just forget the phrase "(as amended by [N4.RFC2231])", please ? But no, I don't think we can drop the mention of RFC 2231 altogether, though I have no problem with some wording to point out that its use (well, at least the multi-line bit) within Netnews is neither necessary nor desirable. >RfC 2231 is firmly on place three (after RfC 3865 and ISO 3166) >of my shit list. MIME was a piece of art, what they did to it >in RfC 2231 is a crime. Indeed. Dittor RFC 2047, for that matter. >Some minutes later, maybe also the token ? I could then write >Archive: creativecommons.org_licenses_by-nc-sa_2.0_de Eh? -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j03HDAuu037243 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j03HDAWc037240 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-2.gradwell.net (lon-mail-2.gradwell.net [193.111.201.126]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j03HD8Cf037222 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-66-214.midband.mdip.bt.net ([81.144.66.214]) by lon-mail-2.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.163) id 41d97d26.2659.24 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:13:10 +0000 (envelope-sender ) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j03HCVv11611 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:12:31 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20544 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: FWS problem Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41AFCB04.4BC1@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41BD7D35.7239@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41BF26EF.33A2@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41C2B9FA.4A6B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41C77B78.6EBD@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CAC8D6.1D57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D373A4.5E28@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D593A7.5D5F@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:07:03 GMT Lines: 84 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41D593A7.5D5F@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> only because of loud protests by the server implementors that >> we agreed to make exceptions for the Newsgroups and Path >> headers, etc, but only on account of the performance hits. >Supersedes: is relevant for news servers, like Control:, where >you also have only three [FWS] or in the fixed variant two *WSP >and still one [FWS] in control-message. No [CFWS] in Control: No, [CFWS] should appear as normal in the Control header. That is a mistake in USEFOR (cf draft-13), because the WG never asked for comments to be disallowed in Control (the performance-hit argument would clearly not apply). >IMHO you should get rid of your special USEFOR msg-id, there's >exactly one line where you use it: >| message-id = "Message-ID:" SP msg-id CRLF >For Lines: you could say that it's now deprecated and the old >syntax was Lines = "Lines:" SP *WSP 1*DIGIT *WSP CRLF >That's no lie, and if somebody tries new tricks with deprecated >headers, then old software might fail for Lines: (huge)9999(!) >> If there is something you want to forbid in a standard (such >> as empty header lines, etc), then it is an exceedingly Bad >> Idea to have two mechanisms for forbidding it >Then let's use your CWSP and WSPC trick. It's a worse idea to >say something as a MUST in the text and then something else in >the syntax. The [FWS] problem is already solved for 7+2 cases, >or 7+1 cases if you insist on Lines: (over)999(lines) >Only 5 (or 6) similar [CFWS] cases, all solved by your idea: >| WSPC = *WSP [ comment [CFWS] ] >Replace all (5 or 6) "leading" (near colon) [CFWS] by WSPC. >| CWSP = [ [CFWS] comment ] *WSP >Dito 5 or 6 "trailing" [CFWS] => CWSP (near CRLF), ready. >For our most critical example of the References: I get >| references = "References:" SP msg-id-list CRLF >| msg-id-list = CWSP msg-id-core *( CFWS msg-id-core ) WSPC >That's a variant enforcing at least either a comment or a WSP >between msg-ids, it allows (x)(a)(u)(e) and > , but not adjacent . The RfC >2822 syntax is very similar: >| references = "References:" 1*msg-id CRLF >| msg-id = [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" [CFWS] >You don't use it, because msg-id one of these overloaded terms: >| msg-id = [FWS] msg-id-core [FWS] >Why not simply delete the special msg-id, and use msg-id-core ? > message-id = "Message-ID:" SP *WSP msg-id-core *WSP CRLF You may have a point there, but there is the problem that we use all over the place in the semantics, and most of those now need to be . So probably better to s/msg-id-core/msg-id/ throughout, and give the necessary [CFWS], CFWS or [FWS] explicitly in the syntax in the relevant headers. -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j03HDAmd037244 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j03HDA3c037241 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-2.gradwell.net (lon-mail-2.gradwell.net [193.111.201.126]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j03HD0Xi037202 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:13:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-66-214.midband.mdip.bt.net ([81.144.66.214]) by lon-mail-2.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.163) id 41d97d1a.2659.23 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:12:58 +0000 (envelope-sender ) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j03HCV411615 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:12:31 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20545 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41C87921.5000404@isode.com> <41C899E0.5AA3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA7040.3B8E@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CA96C6.50F6@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41CB349D.3C0B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D0B7C7.35C7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D33618.4291@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:15:24 GMT Lines: 49 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41D5A073.7809@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> the _real_ format, if there is such a thing, is totally >> irrelevant, provided that it is at least permitted. >For our discussion about the news URL I read some stuff in > >2396bis uses this syntax: >| IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture ) "]" >| IPvFuture = "v" 1*HEXDIG "." 1*( unreserved / sub-delims / ":" ) >For IPv6 there's a pointer to RfC 3513 and the complete fun. >There's no pointer for IPv4 (so probably the only existing >form is 2821, and 2396bis couldn't use it for several reasons). All the world and his dog are giving a conflicting syntax for , and I do not think we want to get involved. Just leave it as RFC 2822 has it, with only the essentual technical changes. Will lead to much less aggro when the time for RFC 2822bis comes. >BTW, you already gave the reason for id-right, you couldn't use >the right part of addr-spec (= domain) in RfC 2822 because that >allows CFWS. Therefore you invented id-left and id-right, only >a hack to get addr-spec minus any CFWS. No, I didn't invent id-left and id-right. RFC 2822 did that. >You can't say that the right part of an addr-spec supports SSNs, >URLs, ISBNs, or other nonsense in square brackets. It's either >a dot-atom-text or an address literal, nothing else. On the contrary, RFC 2822 allows all of those things in the part of an (and hence so does our draft). So it would be entriely wrong fo forbid them in an . -- 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: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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