Subject: Re: New USEPRO path-identity text

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:02:39 -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. An injecting agent MUST identify
   itself with the same <path-identity> in both Path and Injection-Info
   headers, and a serving agent SHOULD use the same <path-identity> in
   both Path and Xref headers. 

s/headers/header fields/g; Didn't we discuss this already at length and
come to a concensus?

   2. An encoding of an IP address - <IPv4address> or <IPv6address> [RFC
      3986] - which SHOULD be a publicly recognized address [RFC 1918]
      for the actual host, as above. This option SHOULD NOT be used if
      an FQDN for that host is available.

I publicly recognize 192.168.0.1, but it is not routable and should not be 
used as a path identity. 

Path identities need to be in the public address space and routable, which
deals not only with private addresses but multicast.

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

Dear Admin:

Here's your minefield, have a nice day.

Sincerely, USEFOR Working Group.

        NOTE: The syntax permits the colon character 

Not the last syntax I've seen.

   and if the agent offers its services to the general public the form
   "abuse@" that FQDN MUST also be available, unless a more specific
   complaints address has been provided in a <complainto-param> of an
   Injection-Info header (F-3.2.14).

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why we are overriding RFC2142 in 
this matter. Why is RFC2142 not sufficient, and what interoperability 
issue is involved to justify this "MUST"?

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:15:00 GMT

>I publicly recognize 192.168.0.1, but it is not routable and should not be 

RFC 1918 make a clear disticntion between the words "public" and "private"
as regards IP addresses, and my wording was intended to build on that
distinction. I am open to suggestions as to how to make that clearer.

>deals not only with private addresses but multicast.

Yes, my first attempt at wording this used the phrase "routing tables", but
I was told that there existed routing tables even inside intranets. Again,
I would welcome alternative wordings - we all know the intent we wish to
convey, but it is not clear how to convey it with total unambiguity.

>Here's your minefield, have a nice day.

Yes. Usenet's a minefield. Always has been. So what's new?

-- 
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