Subject: Ticket status, March 3, 2006

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:52:47 +0100

The last ticket status update was from Feb 20. Time for another round.

1032 USEFOR general: Document changes from RFC 1036

 Comments from Charles Lindsey and Frank Ellermann that the convention
 of putting "cmsg" in the subject is no longer valid.

 Suggested addition to appendix B:

   The convention to interpret subjects starting
   with the word "cmsg" as control message was removed.

 Status: "Text accepted".

1047 USEFOR 3.1.6: Path field delimiters and components

Discussion has not clarified whether keywords are in USEFOR or USEPRO.
Poll sent out on March 3.

Otherwise, syntax seems to have converged.

Status: "Text proposed".

1156 USEFOR Appendix: IANA registration form for headers.

 Seems uncontroversial, once the rules have been made clear.
 Editor has added registration templates to forthcoming -07, and posted 
deltas to the list.

 Some controversy over the choice of reference for some headers; leaving 
open for now.

 Status: "Text proposed"

1157: USEFOR 3.2.5 Control: can't use "value" construct

 Status: "Text proposed", no comment on list since last time. 
Incorporated in -07.

1158: USEFOR 3.2.14: Need better ABNF for host-value

 Status: "Text proposed" - seems uncontroversial. Incorporated (with 
example) in -07.

1159: USEFOR 3.2.14: Advice on sender vs posting-account

 Status: "Text proposed" - also a poll in progress on keeping vs 
deleting the fields

1177: USEFOR 3.2.12 Archive ABNF + 3.2.14 Injection-info ABNF

 "Text accepted", including note (recorded in tracker March 3)

1178: USEFOR 3.1.6: Whitespace in Path header

 Consensus is STILL not clear to me.

1179: USEFOR general: [FWS] that should be *WSP

 (Discussed on the list with subject line containing #1177)

 I think Frank's suggested changes are now accepted, with the NOTE I 
suggested in section 2.2 giving adequate warning. But since this text is 
new:

 Status: "Text proposed".

That's all folks....