Subject: Re: #1083 USEPRO 7.5: Rules for Generating message-ID

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:56:41 +0200

--On 21. juli 2005 11:32 +0200 Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> For #1003 the problem of abusing foreign name spaces is still
> unresolved, that's a USEFOR problem, last discussed in:
>
> <http://mid.gmane.org/[email-masked]>
> <http://mid.gmane.org/[email-masked]>

I'm curious..... why is it an USEFOR problem rather than an USEPRO problem, 
apart from having been discussed under an USEFOR ticket earlier?

                 Harald

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:04:02 +0200

> I'm curious..... why is it an USEFOR problem rather than an

Because everything else related to the <msg-id> semantics and
syntax is in USEFOR:

- the peculiar length limit (not 320= 255+1+64, but only 248)
- the excluded CTL and other excluded quoted-pairs like "\ "
- the case sensitive <id-domain> idea (in my terminology)
- a variant of the STRONGLY DISCOURAGED domain literals
- the second half of the security considerations in chapter 5
- the general "build on 2822" concept pointing to 2822 3.6.4
- 3 of the 9 differences from RfC 2822 are about the <msg-id>
- the future differences from RfC 1036 will cover the major
  steps away from the known <unique@full_domain_name> concept

In contrast USEPRO doesn't talk much about the <msg-id>, it's
the NNTP view, a given identifier, nobody cares whether it has
any "@" or what the right side might be - perfectly okay from
a server's POV, but not the place to introduce the concept of
a "name space" aka <id-domain>.

The real issue is that 2822 says _only_ RECOMMENDED about the
<id-domain>, but it's an implicit MUST in the older standards
(STD 11, 1036, s-o-1036, predecessors).

Generally I'm quite happy with a RECOMMENDED, even in critical
cases like LTRU SHOULD-Suppress-Script or SPF SHOULD-NOT-PRA,
but <id-domain> is a fundamental concept, it's no <id-right>.

                     Bye, Frank

---

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:28:48 -0400

> but <id-domain> is a fundamental concept, it's no <id-right>.

Since the chair, asked: I agree with Frank's statements on
this.

This WG wasted/spent a bunch of time arguing about this
uniqueness requirement several years ago.  The only sane way
for implementors to attempt uniqueness is by having confidence they don't
step on other people's toes.

"Pavement markings" will help keep all the drivers in their own lanes,
and give drivers the assurance of having the right-of-way in their own
lane.  Calling it 'id-right' may express what the software can
support, but declaring Usenet message IDs to have no lanes at all
is a problem.  Off-roading is no fun when there are that many
drivers you have to watch out for.