Subject: Ticket status, November 28, 2005

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:25:40 +0100

It's been a long time since the last one.
Here's the current list - 17 USEFOR tickets open.

1003 USEFOR 3.1.3 - Cleanup ABNF for msg-id
"Text accepted"

1028 USEFOR 3.1.2 Date: What zones should be on the MUST accept list?
"Text accepted"

1029 USEFOR 3.2.2 References: Should comments be a MUST NOT?
"No change"

1032 USEFOR general: Document changes from RFC 1036
"Text needed" - waiting for Ken to propose text

1046 USEFOR 5. MIME boundary security considerations
"Text accepted"

1047 USEFOR 3.1.6: Path field delimiters and components
"Text proposed"

1052 USEFOR general: Document changes from RFC 2822
"Text accepted"

1053 USEFOR 2.1 Relationship to RFC 2822
"Text accepted"

1078 USEFOR 3.1.5: need to describe meaning of Newsgroups header field in 
email
 "No consensus"

1079 USEFOR 2.1: List all header fields which don't allow comments
 "Text proposed"

1080 USEFOR 3.2.14: MIME parameters for Injection-Info and Archive
 header field need more text/updated syntax
  "Text proposed"

1082 USEFOR 3.2.9: Need more text about Approved header field semantics?
  "Text proposed"

1084 USEFOR 2.1, 3: Names for ABNF productions redefining 822 constructs
  "Proposed No Change"

1088 USEFOR 3.2.1: Should Injection-Date header be mandatory or optional?
  "Text proposed" (I have added Russ' proposal of Sept 23 to the tracker)

1101 USEFOR 3: Empty article bodies - yes/no?
  "No change needed"

1102 USEFOR 1: Definition of "agents" or of "server/UA"?
  "Proposed No Change"

1132 UEFOR 3.1.6: Outlaw IP address in path-identity?
  "Text accepted" (although the actual text is in #1047)

When discussing the specific issues, please include the number in the 
subject header, and STAY ON TOPIC.

Thanks!

                       Harald

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:24:51 +0100

> 1102 USEFOR 1: Definition of "agents" or of "server/UA"?

Was that really the last state ?  I vaguely recall that some
prefer to talk about "news servers" and "UAs" in USEFOR.

IIRC the details about "relaying agents" affect only USEPRO,
and the whole concept of a "followup agent" is unnecessary.

Pure "posting agents" are rare and not really interesting:
If it's one of those "multipart FAQ posting agents", then it
should know how References work like any "followup agent".

In your "I'm back" article you said:

> it would be nice to have a final draft of USEFOR before 
> Christmas season rolls around

First Advent was yesterday :)  I'd settle for a "new" draft
not necessarily "final":  #1102 would be only a bulk editorial
effort, nothing substantial.
                               Bye, Frank

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:36:33 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> 1078 USEFOR 3.1.5: need to describe meaning of Newsgroups
> header field in email  "No consensus"

IIRC most of "us" (TINU) didn't want this, but it's not yet
clear if we should do the opposite, i.e. explain what "To:"
or "Cc:" probably mean if they show up in news.

_Iff_ we do this it should IMHO be in USEAGE, maybe as a
chapter with considerations for combined mail and news agents.

If I got this right #1078 wrt USEFOR could be "no change" (?)

                          Bye, Frank

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:33:38 GMT

>prefer to talk about "news servers" and "UAs" in USEFOR.

Actually, I would make it "serving agents" and "user agents" in USEFOR
(for symetry), and change the existing "serving agent" in USEPRO to
"storage agents" (which better describes what they do).	

>and the whole concept of a "followup agent" is unnecessary.

I agree with Frank here. Nobody actually objected to simplifying the
wording in USEFOR, and it would simplify my task of finally removing all
duplications on information between USEFOR and USEPRO.

I have already offered to write the detailed changes that would be needed.
Looks Like I should go ahead and do that anyway, so that people can see
exactly what the consequences would be.

-- 
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

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:46:31 GMT

>Here's the current list - 17 USEFOR tickets open.

You omitted to mention #1051, #1081, #1083 and #1093, but it appears these
are all for USEPRO or USEAGE, which is fair enough.

>1047 USEFOR 3.1.6: Path field delimiters and components

Currently under discussion.

>1078 USEFOR 3.1.5: need to describe meaning of Newsgroups header field in 

Curently under dicussion, but can go in USEAGE if we cannot agree otherwise.

>1079 USEFOR 2.1: List all header fields which don't allow comments

That is fine.

> header field need more text/updated syntax

That is fine.

>1082 USEFOR 3.2.9: Need more text about Approved header field semantics?

That is fine.

>1084 USEFOR 2.1, 3: Names for ABNF productions redefining 822 constructs

That is fine.

>  "Text proposed" (I have added Russ' proposal of Sept 23 to the tracker)

I disagree, for reasons stated in
http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg02500.html.

Russ's "MUST be inserted" is a matter for USEPRO (where it is already
stated). His "MUST accept" is redundant, insofar as it is always the
case that agents MUST accept (or rather MUST not reject) the absence of a
header that is classified as "optional".

There is nothing technically wrong with the present USEFOR 3.2.1. It is
just slightly bizarre to have a header which "MUST" be inserted, but is
nevertheless described as optional (though I now accept that situation is
correct). Therefore I suggested a NOTE, whose latest version is:

    NOTE: [USEPRO] REQUIRES this header field to be inserted whenever an
    article is injected into the network. However, it has not formally
    been designated as "mandatory" since articles generated by earlier
    systems which do not include it still need to be accepted.

However, if we do not include such a NOTE, then the present text should be
left unchanged.

>1101 USEFOR 3: Empty article bodies - yes/no?

That is fine.

>1102 USEFOR 1: Definition of "agents" or of "server/UA"?

Currently under discussion.

>  "Text accepted" (although the actual text is in #1047)

The principle is agreed, though the precise text is still under discussion
(#1047)

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:23:21 GMT

>> header field in email  "No consensus"

There are two current, and conflicting, practices.

1. A followup which is also emailed includes a Newsgroups header.

2. An email reply, not posted to a newsgroup, includes a Newsgroups header
(I believe only a very few user agents do this - can someone name them?).

I think it is agreed that #1 is a reasonable convention and #2 is not, but
until some standard (or BCP) settles the matter, recipients of the email
have no way to interpret what is going on. As soon as some documents makes
it clear, you can use that document to beat about the head anyone who uses
the "wrong" convention.

>chapter with considerations for combined mail and news agents.

I agree that if it cannot be covered in USEFOR (through lack of
consensus), then it could be said in USEAGE. The main argument against
saying it in USEFOR was some doubt as to whether we were allowed to define
such a meaning for email (even though Newsgrpoups is "our" header). I did
ask Harald to enquire of IESG whether this was indeed allowable or not.

>or "Cc:" probably mean if they show up in news.

I would have no problem mentioning that possibility in USEAGE. Our earlier
"article" drafts supported convention #1 for the Newsgroups header, but
mentioned "To:" and "Cc:" within news articles as an optional possibility
(though actually it is quite a good idea, so certainly mentionable in
USEAGE).

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:38:41 +0100

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> I have already offered to write the detailed changes that
> would be needed.  Looks Like I should go ahead and do that
> anyway, so that people can see exactly what the consequences
> would be.

I'd guess that this will be a rather boring hour with an editor
resulting in a better readable version of the text (plus a few
corresponding changes in USEPRO).

How about waiting for -06, worst case there are still some
issues fixed in -07, and then offer a -08 for #1102 and WGLC ?

About two weeks to read -06 and prepare -07, and publish -08
immediately after -07.  If the only WGLC problem is #1102 for
some obscure reason simply republish -07 as -09 for the IETF
"last call".  With Harald's plan to be ready for WGLC before
2006 we'd need -06 (without #1102) at 2005-12-10.  Bye, Frank

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:46:38 +0100

Good to see so many things being agreeable...

> However, if we do not include such a NOTE, then the present text should be

The text that I inserted into the ticket system is (in case people have 
forgotten):

 This header field MUST be inserted whenever an article is
 injected.
 However, software that predates this standard does not use this
 header, and therefore agents MUST accept articles without the
 Injection-Date header field.

I think this text is better than what Charles is proposing.
I don't see anything that is more bizarre than the other uses of MUST in 
the document.

2 for Russ', 1 for Charles' - other opinions?

                     Harald