Subject: Admin: Ticket status

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:25:55 +0200

I'm listing the tickets in numeric order.

1002 USEFOR 6. References - Updates needed

 Resolution proposed on June 14, no objection to content.
 Status: "text accepted".

1003 USEFOR 3.1.3 - Cleanup ABNF for msg-id
 Status: "text needed"
 I think I can produce a proposed resolution, but it requires wading
 through the message log again.

1004 USEFOR 3.2.14 - Can we deprecate X- headers?
 Status: Text proposed. Some debate on X-Mailer.

1008 USEFOR 1.5: relation between a followup and a References: header?
  Status: "Text accepted".

1021 USEFOR 3.1.5 Newsgroups header ABNF and description needs cleanup
  Status: "Text proposed" - debate. Need to review.

1022 USEFOR 2.1 obs-phrase: Should dot be permitted in phrases?
  Status: "No consensus" - still only 2 voices.

1028 USEFOR 3.1.2 Date: What zones should be on the MUST accept list?
  Status: "Text proposed". I'll send out a message; I think we're
  finished with it.

1029 USEFOR 3.2.2 References: Should comments be a MUST NOT?
  Status: "No consensus". I'm not sure that's right; will review.

1030 USEFOR general: Backwards compatibility and handling incompatibilities
  Status: "No consensus". Unless specific suggestions come from it, I'll
  change the status to "No change needed".

1031 USEFOR general: Standard terminology and text
  Status: "No consensus". Unless further specific suggestions come from
  this once the "header" issue is settled, I'll change the status to
  "No change needed".

1032 USEFOR general: Document changes from RFC 1036
  Status: "Text needed"

1042 USEFOR 3.1.5: Newsgroups folding?
  Status: "Text needed". I think there's consensus that at this time,
  we cannot recommend folding newsgroups.

1043 USEFOR 2.1 use of term "header"
  Status: "Text proposed"

1046 USEFOR 5. MIME boundary security considerations
  Status: "Text needed". Principle seems uncontroversial.....

1047 USEFOR 3.1.6: Path field delimiters and components
  Status: "Text needed"

1048 USEFOR 3.2.1 Injection-date syntax
  Status: "Proposed no change"

1050 USEFOR 3.2.11: Xref field for local use only?
  Status: "No change needed"

So far, no tickets have been opened on USEPRO.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:41:59 GMT

> Resolution proposed on June 14, no objection to content.

I still hanker after a bit more semantic text in USEFOR, and even invited
Forrest to raise a ticket to create some. But I am not pushing it. What is
there, plus what is now in USEPRO will suffice, - just.

> Status: Text proposed. Some debate on X-Mailer.

I prefer no action.

>  Status: "No consensus" - still only 2 voices.

I thought we were agreed to allow it. It was certainly so in our earlier
drafts.

>1032 USEFOR general: Document changes from RFC 1036

There is text currently in USEPRO, which should be reviewed (also the
"transitional arrangements" text). Maybe it finally gets moved to USEFOR.

>  we cannot recommend folding newsgroups.

I think it is agreed that folding should be in the syntax and hence MUST be
accepted (though it will take a while).

The issue is whether we say MUST NOT generate, SHOULD NOT generate (cf
related matter of comments in References), or SHOULD NOT generate until
... (or various other weaker formulations). Could we settle on SHOULD
NOT?

>  Status: "Text needed". Principle seems uncontroversial.....

Does not the problem already exist in mail? Have mail standards raised
this as a security consideration?

>1047 USEFOR 3.1.6: Path field delimiters and components

There is a NOTE I proposed in Reply to John. It probably needs more work.

-- 
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