Subject: Re: #1088 Injection-date (Re: Ticket status, November 28, 2005)

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:40:45 GMT

In <[email-masked]> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

>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.

But I never claimed that those "MUST"s were "bizarre". I said they were
redundant.

There are currently 14 optional header fields defined in USEFOR. If we are
to say "agents MUST accept articles without the XXXX header field" in this
case, why are we not saying the same thing for all the other 13?

And as for Russ's first MUST, USEPRO currently specifies about a dozen
steps that have to be gone through in order to inject an article correctly
(with assorted MUST/SHOULD/MAY wording as appropriate). One of them is
"MUST insert Injection-Date" (with an exception for some rare special
cases where it is already present) and it clearly belongs as one of those
steps. So why repeat it in USEFOR (and what is proposed is technically
incorrect, because of that rare special case)?

The proper action, if you don't like my suggested NOTE, is "No change".

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

-- 
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: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:12:08 GMT

In <[email-masked]> Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]> writes:

>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 ?

No, because I need to know how the terminology is going to be defined in
order to make progress on USEPRO.

Hopefully, all technical issues will be resolved in time for -06, and -07
will just be a cleanup. So we should be able to start serious progress on
USEPRO once -06 is done.

So I still think I need to embark on the "boring hour with an editor" now,
assuming there is still some possibility the WG might then agree to adopt
it.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:47:02 +0100

Charles Lindsey wrote:
 
> I need to know how the terminology is going to be defined in

Sure, but USEPRO is something for 2006, while USEFOR-06 is for
this year.  I'd prefer to see or create a short text diff. -05
vs. -06 without the bulk #1102 updates.  The latter is only a
case of editorial "lillygilding" (Randy's term for some late
LTRU issues), no chance to get something seriously wrong.

For the other remaining tickets (excl. #1102) it's likely that
we find some issues in -06, and a short text diff. should help.

                            Bye, Frank

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:01:41 GMT

>LTRU issues), no chance to get something seriously wrong.

There is already more that has changed since -05 (as documented in
Harald's proposed/accepted texts) than will fit in a short text diff. ISTM
that you are not opposed to making the #1102 change, in which case I might
as well get on and document what I propose. In that case, I would be able
to produce a revised USEPRO as soon as the next USEFOR appears that would
at least be consistent and remove all the duplications that currently
exist. Then we could start discussing USEPRO in detail.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:44:49 +0100

I had an offline exchange with the editor, and he seems to think that it's 
not unreasonable to make the change.

I'll propose text for a definitions paragraph, and he will use editorial 
license to make the changes in the body of the document.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:29:59 +0100

I propose the following resolution for #1102:

ADD to the definitions in 1.5:

An "user agent" is software that helps posters submit proto-articles to a 
news server, fetches articles from a news server and presents them to a 
reader, and assists the reader in creating articles and followups.

A "news server" is software which accepts articles from an user agent, 
makes articles available to user agents, and exchanges articles with other 
news servers.

The word "agent" is used when describing requirements that apply to both 
user agents and news servers.

REMOVE from the definitions in 1.5:

"posting agent" ( -> user agent)
"reading agent" ( -> user agent)
"followup agent" ( -> user agent)
"injecting agent" ( -> news server)

CHANGE all occurences of the above + "serving agent", "netnews agents", 
"news agents" into one of the three terms described above.

Makes sense?

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:37:48 +0100

> The proper action, if you don't like my suggested NOTE, is "No change".

I do not agree. There has been enough debate about this single field that 
it's a Good Thing to be explicit. In my opinion.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:55:59 GMT

>license to make the changes in the body of the document.

Fair enough! My offer to produce a first cut of the needed changes still
stands if Ken wants to take it up.

I am assuming that the two terms to be defined willl be "User Agent" and
"Serving Agent", and that my suggestion to s/serving agent/storage agent/
plus s/news-server/serving agent/ throughout USEPRO is OK.

The other main consequential change in USEPRO will be that section 2.1
(definitions) will be replaced by a statement that the definitions from
USEFOR are adopted (these definitions are now pretty well identical in the
2 documents) and section 2.2 (Defining the Architecture) will remain
largely as it is (intrpducing the overall architecture by defining the
more specific *-agent terms, which are then used throughout the remainder
of USEPRO).

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:29:04 -0800

> I propose the following resolution for #1102:

[...]

I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:29:36 -0800

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:
> Charles Lindsey <[email-masked]> wrote:

> it's a Good Thing to be explicit. In my opinion.

Yup.  Not that this changes the numbers any, but I haven't changed my mind
on this.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 12:15:00 GMT

>makes articles available to user agents, and exchanges articles with other 

That wording might imply that each user/serving agent is obliged to offer
all the services described, whereas there exist specialized agents (esp.
serving ones) which do only part of the job.

I suggest s/and/or/ in a couple of places. Otherwise, it seems fine.

>"news agents" into one of the three terms described above.

There will be a few places where the wording will need a bit more than
that, e.g. "... a news server, when injecting articles, MUST/SHOULD
[do whatever]...."

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:34:57 +0100

--On fredag, desember 09, 2005 12:15:00 +0000 Charles Lindsey 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> In <[email-masked]> Harald Tveit
> Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> An "user agent" is software that helps posters submit proto-articles to
>> a  news server, fetches articles from a news server and presents them to
>> a  reader, and assists the reader in creating articles and followups.
>
>> makes articles available to user agents, and exchanges articles with
>> other  news servers.
>

That's reasonable. I'll leave the editor to do that.