Subject: #1043 USEFOR 2.1 Use of the term "header"

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:17:52 +0200

[I've created a new ticket number for the "header" issue, because I'm not 
sure that's all there is to Bruce's complaint in #1031. I can't tell from 
what he wrote.]

This is the kind of issue that is most irritating of all, because the group 
is split down the middle, there are reasonable arguments on both sides, the 
issue has to be decided.... and whatever we do, the decision won't change 
one bit on the wire, so there are no technical issues involved that could 
be used to argue strongly for one side or another.

The two positions I've heard:

- Use the terms "header", "header name" and "header content" the way they 
are currently defined in USEFOR

The argument in favour is that this conforms most closely with previous 
News documents and colloquial usage. There are also some mail standards 
that use "header" this way.

Seen in this "camp": Henry, Frank and Charles

- Use the RFC 2822 terms "header field", "field name" and "field body" for 
the terms currently defined in USEFOR 2.1.

The argument in favour is that this conforms with RFC 2822 and documents 
that derive their terminology from that (and coincidentally also allows us 
to define "header content" differently than "field body", if we need that - 
Charles wants such a term).

Seen in this "camp": Forrest, Bruce, Richard and John Stanley

I'm tempted to invoke the decision making procedure of RFC 3929 section 4.4 
and flip a coin... but that might be considered a too flippant way of 
making the call.

Are there others than the 7 individuals above who have a strong opinion one 
way or the other, or are there people among the 7 individuals who feel that 
I've mischaracterized their position?

As I said - this won't change the protocol on the wire one bit. But we need 
to stop talking and decide.

                          Harald

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 06:33:54 -0700

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

> - Use the RFC 2822 terms "header field", "field name" and "field body"
> for the terms currently defined in USEFOR 2.1.

> that derive their terminology from that (and coincidentally also allows
> us to define "header content" differently than "field body", if we need
> that - Charles wants such a term).

> Seen in this "camp": Forrest, Bruce, Richard and John Stanley

I think we should use the RFC 2822 terminology as well.

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

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:00:06 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:18 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: #1043 USEFOR 2.1 Use of the term "header"

[snip]

> I've mischaracterized their position?

Area advisor opinion: after re-reading the working group charter I can
understand why this has been contentious.  The charter says:

"The Goal of this working group is to publish a standards-track successor to
RFC 1036 that with particular attention to backward compatibility,
formalizes best current practice and best proposed practice."

Ignoring the "that with" error, that could be read to imply that there's a
requirement to use whatever terms have found their way into "best current
practice".  However, 2822 is a normative reference in usefor.  I'm thus
inclined to believe that usefor should use the same terminology used in 2822
where appropriate, or it should explicitly explain why different terminology
is being used and precisely where the deviations exist.

Not a position, just advice.

-Scott-

---

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:48:55 -0400

On Thu June 23 2005 09:17, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> that derive their terminology from that
[...]
> I've mischaracterized their position?

As I have tried to make clear, the issue goes beyond "RFC 2822 and documents
that derive their terminology from that":
o The suggestion is consistent with the Internet user's glossary (FYI 18)
o It facilitates understanding of the normative references which must
  themselves be understood by implementers (since that is the meaning of
  "normative")
o It is terminology used in the MIME documents, which are independent of
  2822 and which are themselves normative references.  See:
  http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/2003/Feb/0827.html
o It is strongly advocated by the Internet Architecture RFC (1958) section
  3.13.

> As I said - this won't change the protocol on the wire one bit.

True, but the WG's charter is to produce IETF Standards Track specifications,
and that itself is a point in favor of using consistent standard terminology
as opposed to "colloquial usage".

If the argument in favor were based solely on 2822 it would be a weaker
argument than it is.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:59:19 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
 
> I'm tempted to invoke the decision making procedure of
> RFC 3929 section 4.4 and flip a coin...

It only irritates me if somebody insists on adding "field"
in a perfectly clear context like "Date header".  Otherwise
Bruce brainwashed me enough to use the 2822-terminology, so
it's more like "moo" than "yes" or "no" in my case.

Removing me and adding Russ & Scott you get a 2:6 for Bruce
and his "hacker slang".
                       Bye, Frank

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:02:24 -0700 (PDT)

> I think we should use the RFC 2822 terminology as well.

Agreed. The RFC 2822 terms are actually pretty good.

				Ned

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:12:02 GMT

>Charles wants such a term).

There is also the argument that the NNTP draft, which has just passed its
Last Call, uses "header" as we currently do. That might well be fixed
after some negotiation with the RFC Editor, but i think we should decide
here what _we_ want, and then leave it to the NNTP group to come into line
if they wish (there is at least a month of leeway before that needs to be
decided).

I think the "content" issue is orthogonal to the issue behind this ticket.

If we leave the terminology as it currently stands in USEFOR, then USEFOR
will define and use the term "header body" (if it needs it - Harald has
already pointed out inconsistencies in the one place it is used). USEPRO
will define and use the term "(semantic) header content".

If we change the terminology to follow RFC 2822, then those two terms will
simply become "header field body" and "(semantic) header field content".
Us poor editors will just have to spend an hour or so with out text
editors :-( .

BTW, will the change, as proposed, still allow us to speak, informally, of
the "Date header", etc., or are we suppose to say the "Date (header)
field" everywhere?

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:16:28 GMT

>...  I'm thus

For the record, our present draft does explain precisely the nature of the
deviation, but it is short on explaining why. However, our earlier draft
_did_ explain why, and that text could easily be copied into, or adapted
for, the current draft.

---

From: Richard Clayton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:11:10 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, Charles Lindsey
<[email-masked]> writes
>
>In <[email-masked]> Harald Tveit 
>Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:
>

the discussions on another list suggested that it was likely to be fixed

>the "Date header", etc., or are we suppose to say the "Date (header)

I don't think a standard ever says anything informally!

'Date header field' may feel like a nuisance to type the first time
around, but it tells the implementor that you're making a precise
statement and, where it matters, they can check the references and
remind themselves whether, for example, this does or doesn't include the
field name, the end of line characters or whatever....

I think Henry Spencer is right and you shouldn't just dive in with 2822
language, but indicate clearly (apologise isn't quite the word I'd use
for something that's quite understandable when you read, albeit a very
slight pain to type in correctly) at the start that along with a lot of
formatting detail some jargon has been inherited from 2822 #2.2 and that
having a copy of that to hand is an inescapable necessity

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin