Subject: Re: New USEPRO path-identity text

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:40:31 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>I am still waiting for an explanation of where you think what I have
>written overrides RFC 2142.

Ok, I'll quote the section where you override 2142. Oh, wait, I've quoted 
it already. Once again:

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

Not just "should", or "ought to be", but a full-blown MUST. RFC2142 has no
such requirement. You've lept from "no requirement" to "MUST" and have yet
to justify it. Why is this a MUST? What part of the news system breaks
when this isn't true?

>Because RFC 2142 is badly written, 

However poorly written you think another RFC is does NOT create an
interoperability issue that we need to solve. Justify the MUST or remove 
it.

>and it is not clear whether the common
>names that it defines MUST be provided, or whrther some of them (and if so
>which ones) are optional. 

Regarding ABUSE@, RFC2142 says:

   For example, if an Internet service provider's domain name is
   COMPANY.COM, then the <[email-masked]> address must be valid and
   supported, 

Simple english. "Must be valid and supported". That's not "optional". I 
see no ambiguity. I see no place where you could see ambiguity. 

> It uses undefined words like "must"

Get a better dictionary. Mine contains a clear definition of "must".

 must{1} v.aux. pt. must
    1. used to express compulsion, obligation,
       requirement, or necessity [I know I must pay
       her, I knew I must pay her]

>Hence the wording I wrote is intended to remove those uncertainties by
>specifying MUST for the injectng agent

Your wording does not "remove uncertainty" because there is none to begin 
with. Your wording places an extra RFC2119 mandate upon something that 
RFC2142 does not. Justify the mandate or remove it. 

>> The news server 
>>"a.b.example.com" will insert a.b.example.com into the Path, but RFC2142 
>>requires that only [email-masked] be valid.

>No, RFC 2142 says that "only the organization's top level domain [is]
>required to be valid", 

Don't contradict me and then quote the RFC that proves I'm correct. If the
news server is a.b.example.com, the ONLY required abuse@ address is
[email-masked], for precisely the reason you quoted. Only the name at
the top level domain is required. For a.b.example.com, that's example.com.

> but since it nowhere defines what is meant by "top level domain", 

Oh, please. If someone is creating a subdomain "b" and populating it with 
host "a" under example.com, then the top level domain is example.com. The 
text of 2142 is even clearer in the example than I was.

>And where do you get that "only" from?

The same RFC you just quoted. See the word "only" in what you quoted from 
it? Why do you quote the word and then ask me the source?

>Even if "example.com" is the TLD, it is still clear that
>abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx are both valid, and even
>encouraged.

Well, were there more than 'x's filling out those addresses, it might be 
clear, but I'll assume you said something like "[email-masked]" and 
"[email-masked]". No, it is NOT clear that both are valid, since it is 
up to the ISP (or domain owner, if you will) to determine what addresses 
OTHER than [email-masked] are valid. The RFC requires only the top 
level domain. 

>Even though RFC 2142 is described as "Standards Track", it is unusable as
>a standard 

Nonsense. That you cannot use it because it does not explicitely define 
every word contained therein does not limit others who understand simple 
english words. Words like "must" and "only". 

> even though it is impossible to discern the letter.

Oh, please. Pretend I own example.com. I run a news server 
a.news.example.com. I am required by the clear statements in RFC2142 to 
maintain and support the address [email-masked], and I need have no 
other abuse@ address within my domain. Period. I need not have 
"[email-masked]", and you have shown no justification for 
overriding RFC2142 on this matter. Either justify the mandate or remove 
it.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:31:43 GMT

>to justify it. Why is this a MUST? What part of the news system breaks

RFC 2142 states that 'the <[email-masked]> address "must" be valid',
but only where COMPANY is an 'Internet service provider' (whatever that
is). If you equate "must" with "MUST" (as you appear to do), then what I
have written is essentially the same. No need for something to break to
justify that "must", apparently.

In fact, what I have written is weaker that RFC 2142 in two respects
(assuming for the sake of argument that "example.com" is the "top-level",
however that is defined):

1. You don't have to provide [email-masked] if you choose to identify
your injector as news.example.com in the Path, and provide
[email-masked] instead (though you could equally well have chosen
to identify as example.com in the Path).

2. You don't have to provide [email-masked] if you provide an
alternative (say [email-masked]) in your Injection-Info.

{3. You don't have to provide any abuse address at all if you are not an
ISP, but that is the same in RFC 2142.}

>interoperability issue that we need to solve. Justify the MUST or remove 

If the "must" is justified, then the "MUST" is justified.

>Don't contradict me and then quote the RFC that proves I'm correct.

Look carefully at the position of the word "only" in those two sentences.
They do NOT say the same thing.

-- 
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