Subject: Re: Ticket status, USEFOR

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:53:15 -0700 (PDT)

Since there is no "ticket" covering the References header section of 05, 
I'll assume that it currently contains the text that this group wants.

If so, then someone needs to open a ticket on USEPRO, since USEPRO is 
trying to claim that the References header is mandatory in followups when 
RFC2822 tells us it is optional, to the point that it even tells us how to 
deal with replies that don't contain one. 

Since USEFOR is apparently further ahead in adoption, it would seem that 
USEPRO is the one standard that is out-of-line. Please nudge it back.

---

From: Henry Spencer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:12:31 -0400 (EDT)

> deal with replies that don't contain one. 

This is not broken and there is no need to fix it.  As has been discussed
many times before, a news standard necessarily imposes a number of extra
constraints, beyond what RFC2822 demands. 

                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       [email-masked]

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:26:00 +0200

--On tirsdag, juli 19, 2005 09:53:15 -0700 John Stanley <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> RFC2822 tells us it is optional, to the point that it even tells us how
> to  deal with replies that don't contain one.
>

John,

the following text is the text that I declared consensus on, and is 
currently in -05:

   A "followup" is an article containing a response to the contents of
   an earlier article, its "precursor".  Every followup includes a
   "References" header field identifying that precursor (but note that
   non-followup articles may also use a References header field).

You're reopening a closed subject (#1008) without bringing new technical 
information. Please don't.

---

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:58:58 -0700 (PDT)

> the following text is the text that I declared consensus on, and is 

It is also in USEPRO-04, so it seems that duplicating efforts is not a 
significant goal of this group. In fact, there are a lot of definitions 
appearing in USEPRO that also appear in USEFOR. 

The definition of a term cannot make something mandatory that has already 
been declared to be optional. A definition tells us what something IS, not 
what it contains. It is the References header section that tells us about 
the use of the References header, and nothing there says anything about 
any difference from RFC2822 as far as optional or mandatory. So the part 
of the "definition" that tells us what  followup contains is contradicted 
by existing standard and our own draft.

> information. Please don't.

I do not need your permission to point out patent contradictions between 
our draft efforts and existing standard, nor to suggest the means to 
correct those contradictions. If this group does not remove patent 
contradictions when they are pointed out, then it is silly to claim that 
the issue is closed. 

I'll also point out that you are apparently letting this "ticket system" 
drive the discussion here, instead of having the discussion here drive the 
ticket system. Please don't. Either this is the place we discuss USEFOR 
issues or we ought to disband and let the ticket system rule. Before you 
let the ticket system rule, however, it needs to be fixed so it either has 
a valid cert or doesn't use a cert at all.

So, as far as the drafts are concerned, the "normative text" in USEFOR-05
that relates to the References header tells us that the header field is
optional. Since we've gotten "consensus" on that text, then anything we 
produce that says otherwise is clearly not consensus. Or else the 
consensus is to be contradictory, which is amazingly dumb.