Subject: RE: New USEPRO path-identity text

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:53:23 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

   News-servers need to identify themselves by inserting their public
   name, in the form of a <path-identity> (F-3.1.6), into Path,
   Injection-Info and Xref headers.

s/headers/header fields/;

   An injecting agent MUST identify
   itself with the same <path-identity> in both Path and Injection-Info
   headers. 

ditto.

   To ensure that a <path-identity> provides a unique identity
   for the news-server concerned, it should be one of:

You cannot ensure anything if the mandate is only "should".

   2. An encoding of an IP address - <IPv4address> or <IPv6address> [RFC
      3986] which SHOULD, according to the routeing tables [Ref needed]
      identify the actual host, as above. This option SHOULD NOT be used
      if an FQDN for that host is available.
 
Since the latest public version of USEFOR text concerning path-identity
([email-masked]) no longer allows
colons in the path-identity, we can no longer use RFC3896 to define how to 
encode an IPv6address. That's fine, we aren't looking for URIs in paths, 
just a path-identity, and colons are not necessary. There is no reason to 
use RFC3986 encoding. I've already suggested one simple encoding that 
seems to lack problems.

Someone else has already pointed out that "routing tables" don't define a
host.

   4. An arbitrary name believed to be unique and registered at least
      with all other news-servers receiving articles directly from the
      given one. The news-server administrator is responsible for
      choosing an appropriate name (and must bear the consequences of an
      inappropriate choice).

We're bordering on this "idiot" fellow again.  If we tell someone that the 
name he picks must be "believed to be unique ... with all other servers 
receiving articles directly" from him, and he follows our rules, then 
there ought to be no consequences with which to threaten him. 

        NOTE: The syntax permits the colon character 

Ummm, no, I don't think so. Not the syntax last presented here by our 
Chair. And I don't recall anyone correcting him to include it.

    and if the agent offers its services to the general public the form
   "abuse@<FQDN>" MUST also be available, 

What is our rationale for the difference from RFC2142 here? Is this an
interoperability issue that needs to be discussed?

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:50:20 GMT

>use RFC3986 encoding. I've already suggested one simple encoding that 

That ticket is still open, and under discussion.

I don't think the world out there is going to accept any encoding of IPv6
addresses other than the one currently in widespread use (as defined in
RFC 3986 as well as lots of other places).

>Chair. And I don't recall anyone correcting him to include it.

Well I did for a start. As I said, discussion is continuing (see my last
reply to Russ).

-- 
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