Subject: Re: NEW: Path field delimiters and components; also #1003 USEFOR 3.1.3 - Resolution of msg-id issues

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:05:28 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>He should have known that ":" was a new feature of this standard,

It should not matter if ":" is a new or old feature. If the standard tells 
him that he can use ":" in a path-identity and he does so, he ought not to 
be called an idiot. If using ":" in a path-identity makes him an idiot, 
then the people who told him he could use it in a path identity are just 
as much idiots as he is. And given the current USEFOR-04, we are telling 
him he can use it.

>However, if you want to make the document idiot-proof, you could say:

What I want is for YOU to stop calling people who do things that our
standard tells them they can do "idiots". If Bruce is publicly flogged for 
saying something is "nonsense" (not a person, just their argument), then
calling people idiots is certainly not acceptable.

       Since older implementations may still treat
    it as a <path-delimiter>, it would be unwise to use it otherwise than
    as a part of an <IPv6address>.

It would seem to be unwise to use it in IPV6 addresses as well, since 
::FFFF:129.144.52.38 and ::FFFF:129.145.23.23 are clearly two different
addresses but the same failure that would make the dead:beef admin an 
idiot would make both of these people idiots. (I.e., non-conforming 
servers would match the "path-identity" of FFFF for both systems and feeds 
would be disrupted.) And yet, we seem to be bending over backwards so they 
can use these literals, but we won't call them idiots because, well, I 
don't know why.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:04:27 +0200

Attempting to return to the problem at hand, rather than the discussion on 
how to discuss these things - John, can you educate me a little bit about 
USENET feeds?

--On 23. juni 2005 17:05 -0700 John Stanley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> servers would match the "path-identity" of FFFF for both systems and
> feeds  would be disrupted.)

If, in a message arriving at the old system "here", there is a Path: header 
that says

Path: there!::FFFF:129.144.52.38!not-for-mail

and "here" does not know about any system named "FFFF", will any change in 
handling happen?

Conversely, if a message arrives with a Path: header that says

Path: there!::FFFF:129.144.52.38!::FFFF:129.145.23.23!not-for-mail

will the two occurences of "FFFF" in the Path: cause anything bad to happen?

Or is there some third circumstance that I haven't guessed at yet that will 
cause something bad to happen?

I'd like to understand what you mean when you say "feeds will be 
disrupted".....

                   Harald