From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Tue Dec 18 04:19:46 2001 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA16240 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:19:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2190A91241; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:19:38 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E189091244; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:19:37 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD77D91241 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:19:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id AF21C5DE0D; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:19:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@merit.edu Received: from gw-nl4.philips.com (gw-nl4.philips.com [212.153.190.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D255DE04 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:19:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpscan-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl4.philips.com with ESMTP id KAA08750 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:19:34 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from peter.van.der.stok@philips.com) From: peter.van.der.stok@philips.com Received: from smtpscan-nl1.philips.com(130.139.36.21) by gw-nl4.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma008741; Tue, 18 Dec 01 10:19:34 +0100 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtpscan-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id KAA02161 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:19:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from notessmtp-nl1.philips.com (notessmtp-nl1.philips.com [130.139.36.10]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id KAA25160 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:19:30 +0100 (MET) Received: from ehv501soh.diamond.philips.com (e3soh01.diamond.philips.com [130.139.54.213]) by notessmtp-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id KAA05782 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:19:28 +0100 (MET) To: zeroconf@merit.edu Cc: rob.udink@philips.com Subject: Re: internet draft X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:47:56 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ehv501soh/H/SERVER/PHILIPS(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 18/12/2001 10:19:55, Serialize complete at 18/12/2001 10:19:55 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0030A400C1256B26_=" Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0030A400C1256B26_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear all, based on the feedback I received after my talk during the 51st IETF meeting in London I prepared an Internet-draft that is currently available at ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vanderstok-zeroconf-issues-00.txt In the draft I try to identify situations in which ambiguities exist with respect to the deployment of zero-configuration protocols. Most of the concerns are related to situations between a small completely unconfigured network and a network that is competely configured with DHCP servers. As Stuart Cheshire pointed out, many issues are easily resolved. However, multiple possibly conflicting solutions are possible for most of them. It is my opinion that zeroconf WG can play a role in coordinating and identifying areas where the removal of configuration administration can lead to conflicting implementations. Recommendations can be formulated in the Zeroconf Host Profile Applicability Statement. I know that some people disagree. Peter Peter van der Stok Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven Bldg: WDC 1-015 Prof. Holstlaan 4 Phone: +31 40 2742649 5656 AA Eindhoven Fax: +31 40 2745033 The Netherlands Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com --=_alternative 0030A400C1256B26_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Dear all,

based on the feedback I received after my talk during the 51st IETF meeting in London
I prepared an Internet-draft that is currently available at

ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vanderstok-zeroconf-issues-00.txt

In the draft I try to identify situations in which ambiguities exist with respect to the deployment of
zero-configuration protocols. Most of the concerns are related to situations between
a small completely unconfigured network and a network that is competely configured with DHCP servers.

As Stuart Cheshire pointed out, many issues are easily resolved. However,  multiple
possibly conflicting solutions are possible for most of them.
It is my opinion that zeroconf WG can play a role in coordinating and identifying areas where
the removal of configuration administration  can lead to conflicting implementations.
Recommendations can be formulated in the Zeroconf Host Profile Applicability Statement.

I know that some people disagree.

Peter

Peter van der Stok                Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven
Bldg: WDC 1-015                  Prof. Holstlaan 4
Phone: +31 40 2742649       5656 AA Eindhoven
Fax:      +31 40 2745033       The Netherlands
Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com
--=_alternative 0030A400C1256B26_=-- From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Tue Dec 18 17:38:47 2001 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28180 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:38:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 794309124E; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:38:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4310D9124F; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:38:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D9C9124E for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:38:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 190175DDFC; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:38:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@merit.edu Received: from mail4.nec.com (dns4.nec.com [131.241.15.4]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3075DDF8 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from netkeeper.sj.nec.com (netkeeper.sj.nec.com [131.241.31.2]) by mail4.nec.com (/) with ESMTP id fBIMcJP08111; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:38:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from galatica.pc.sj.nec.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netkeeper.sj.nec.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27032; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:38:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by GALATICA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:36:17 -0800 Message-ID: From: Jim Busse To: peter.van.der.stok@philips.com, zeroconf@merit.edu Cc: rob.udink@philips.com Subject: RE: internet draft Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:36:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C18814.630ACC20" Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C18814.630ACC20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Peter: Please help me understand. I was a little confused after reading your draft. I think most of the draft revolves around naming services, so: Is it your suggestion that Zeroconf expand its scope to include the specification of a naming service which would comply with the Zeroconf protocol requirements? Or is your suggestion that Zeroconf WG provide some "suggestions" or "recommendations" how naming services could comply with Zeroconf requirements? If your suggestion is not accurately summarized by either of these, could you please help me understand by giving me a simple summary of your suggestion? Thanks. Jim Busse -----Original Message----- From: peter.van.der.stok@philips.com [mailto:peter.van.der.stok@philips.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:48 AM To: zeroconf@merit.edu Cc: rob.udink@philips.com Subject: Re: internet draft Dear all, based on the feedback I received after my talk during the 51st IETF meeting in London I prepared an Internet-draft that is currently available at ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vanderstok-zeroconf-issues-00.txt In the draft I try to identify situations in which ambiguities exist with respect to the deployment of zero-configuration protocols. Most of the concerns are related to situations between a small completely unconfigured network and a network that is competely configured with DHCP servers. As Stuart Cheshire pointed out, many issues are easily resolved. However, multiple possibly conflicting solutions are possible for most of them. It is my opinion that zeroconf WG can play a role in coordinating and identifying areas where the removal of configuration administration can lead to conflicting implementations. Recommendations can be formulated in the Zeroconf Host Profile Applicability Statement. I know that some people disagree. Peter Peter van der Stok Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven Bldg: WDC 1-015 Prof. Holstlaan 4 Phone: +31 40 2742649 5656 AA Eindhoven Fax: +31 40 2745033 The Netherlands Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C18814.630ACC20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Peter:
 
Please help me understand.   I was a little confused after reading your draft.  I think most of the draft revolves around naming services, so:
 
Is it your suggestion that Zeroconf expand its scope to include the specification of a naming service which would comply with the Zeroconf protocol requirements?
 
Or is your suggestion that Zeroconf WG provide some "suggestions" or "recommendations" how naming services could comply with Zeroconf requirements?
 
If your suggestion is not accurately summarized by either of these, could you please help me understand by giving me a simple summary of your suggestion?
 
Thanks.
 
Jim Busse
-----Original Message-----
From: peter.van.der.stok@philips.com [mailto:peter.van.der.stok@philips.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:48 AM
To: zeroconf@merit.edu
Cc: rob.udink@philips.com
Subject: Re: internet draft


Dear all,

based on the feedback I received after my talk during the 51st IETF meeting in London
I prepared an Internet-draft that is currently available at

ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vanderstok-zeroconf-issues-00.txt

In the draft I try to identify situations in which ambiguities exist with respect to the deployment of
zero-configuration protocols. Most of the concerns are related to situations between
a small completely unconfigured network and a network that is competely configured with DHCP servers.

As Stuart Cheshire pointed out, many issues are easily resolved. However,  multiple
possibly conflicting solutions are possible for most of them.
It is my opinion that zeroconf WG can play a role in coordinating and identifying areas where
the removal of configuration administration  can lead to conflicting implementations.
Recommendations can be formulated in the Zeroconf Host Profile Applicability Statement.

I know that some people disagree.

Peter

Peter van der Stok                Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven
Bldg: WDC 1-015                  Prof. Holstlaan 4
Phone: +31 40 2742649       5656 AA Eindhoven
Fax:      +31 40 2745033       The Netherlands
Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com
------_=_NextPart_001_01C18814.630ACC20-- From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Wed Dec 19 03:33:34 2001 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25769 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:33:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 66C3691258; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:32:17 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 285C091259; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:32:17 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7C291258 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 84B7E5DD99; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:32:15 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@merit.edu Received: from gw-nl4.philips.com (gw-nl4.philips.com [212.153.190.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F625DD92 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:32:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpscan-nl2.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl4.philips.com with ESMTP id JAA25266; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:32:06 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from peter.van.der.stok@philips.com) From: peter.van.der.stok@philips.com Received: from smtpscan-nl2.philips.com(130.139.36.22) by gw-nl4.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma025264; Wed, 19 Dec 01 09:32:06 +0100 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtpscan-nl2.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id JAA16221; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:32:05 +0100 (MET) Received: from notessmtp-nl1.philips.com (notessmtp-nl1.philips.com [130.139.36.10]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id JAA24461; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:32:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from ehv501soh.diamond.philips.com (e3soh01.diamond.philips.com [130.139.54.213]) by notessmtp-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id JAA20316; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:32:01 +0100 (MET) To: Jim Busse Cc: rob.udink@philips.com, zeroconf@merit.edu Subject: RE: internet draft X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:28:47 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ehv501soh/H/SERVER/PHILIPS(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 19/12/2001 09:32:28, Serialize complete at 19/12/2001 09:32:28 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002EE2E0C1256B27_=" Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 002EE2E0C1256B27_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jim, Thanks for your question. My suggestion is the second: Zeroconf WG provide some "suggestions" or "recommendations" how naming services could comply with Zeroconf requirements. This is supported by the content of sections 3.2 and 4 of ZeroConf Host profile Applicability Statement. I wanted to point out where, in my view, additional recommendations are needed. This may lead to recommendations to for example DNS WGs. I am convinced that my list is not exhaustive and other ponts may come up in the future. Some points are possibly already addressed outside my perception. Peter Peter van der Stok Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven Bldg: WDC 1-015 Prof. Holstlaan 4 Phone: +31 40 2742649 5656 AA Eindhoven Fax: +31 40 2745033 The Netherlands Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com Jim Busse Sent by: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu 18-12-01 23:36 To: Peter van der Stok/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS@EMEA3 zeroconf@merit.edu cc: Rob Udink/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS@EMEA3 Subject: RE: internet draft Classification: Peter: Please help me understand. I was a little confused after reading your draft. I think most of the draft revolves around naming services, so: Is it your suggestion that Zeroconf expand its scope to include the specification of a naming service which would comply with the Zeroconf protocol requirements? Or is your suggestion that Zeroconf WG provide some "suggestions" or "recommendations" how naming services could comply with Zeroconf requirements? If your suggestion is not accurately summarized by either of these, could you please help me understand by giving me a simple summary of your suggestion? Thanks. Jim Busse -----Original Message----- From: peter.van.der.stok@philips.com [mailto:peter.van.der.stok@philips.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:48 AM To: zeroconf@merit.edu Cc: rob.udink@philips.com Subject: Re: internet draft Dear all, based on the feedback I received after my talk during the 51st IETF meeting in London I prepared an Internet-draft that is currently available at ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vanderstok-zeroconf-issues-00.txt In the draft I try to identify situations in which ambiguities exist with respect to the deployment of zero-configuration protocols. Most of the concerns are related to situations between a small completely unconfigured network and a network that is competely configured with DHCP servers. As Stuart Cheshire pointed out, many issues are easily resolved. However, multiple possibly conflicting solutions are possible for most of them. It is my opinion that zeroconf WG can play a role in coordinating and identifying areas where the removal of configuration administration can lead to conflicting implementations. Recommendations can be formulated in the Zeroconf Host Profile Applicability Statement. I know that some people disagree. Peter Peter van der Stok Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven Bldg: WDC 1-015 Prof. Holstlaan 4 Phone: +31 40 2742649 5656 AA Eindhoven Fax: +31 40 2745033 The Netherlands Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com --=_alternative 002EE2E0C1256B27_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Jim,

Thanks for your question.
My suggestion is the second:

Zeroconf WG provide some "suggestions" or "recommendations" how naming services could comply with Zeroconf requirements.

This is supported by the content of sections 3.2 and 4 of ZeroConf Host profile Applicability Statement.
I wanted to point out where, in my view, additional recommendations are needed.
This may lead to recommendations to for example DNS WGs.
I am convinced that my list is not exhaustive and other ponts may come up in the future.
Some points are possibly already addressed outside my perception.

Peter

Peter van der Stok                Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven
Bldg: WDC 1-015                  Prof. Holstlaan 4
Phone: +31 40 2742649       5656 AA Eindhoven
Fax:      +31 40 2745033       The Netherlands
Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com


Jim Busse <JIM@pc.sj.nec.com>
Sent by: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu

18-12-01 23:36

       
        To:        Peter van der Stok/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS@EMEA3
zeroconf@merit.edu
        cc:        Rob Udink/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS@EMEA3
        Subject:        RE: internet draft

        Classification:        




Peter:
 
Please help me understand.   I was a little confused after reading your draft.  I think most of the draft revolves around naming services, so:
 
Is it your suggestion that Zeroconf expand its scope to include the specification of a naming service which would comply with the Zeroconf protocol requirements?
 
Or is your suggestion that Zeroconf WG provide some "suggestions" or "recommendations" how naming services could comply with Zeroconf requirements?
 
If your suggestion is not accurately summarized by either of these, could you please help me understand by giving me a simple summary of your suggestion?
 
Thanks.
 
Jim Busse
-----Original Message-----
From: peter.van.der.stok@philips.com [mailto:peter.van.der.stok@philips.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:48 AM
To: zeroconf@merit.edu
Cc: rob.udink@philips.com
Subject: Re: internet draft

Dear all,

based on the feedback I received after my talk during the 51st IETF meeting in London
I prepared an Internet-draft that is currently available at

ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vanderstok-zeroconf-issues-00.txt

In the draft I try to identify situations in which ambiguities exist with respect to the deployment of
zero-configuration protocols. Most of the concerns are related to situations between
a small completely unconfigured network and a network that is competely configured with DHCP servers.

As Stuart Cheshire pointed out, many issues are easily resolved. However,  multiple
possibly conflicting solutions are possible for most of them.
It is my opinion that zeroconf WG can play a role in coordinating and identifying areas where
the removal of configuration administration  can lead to conflicting implementations.
Recommendations can be formulated in the Zeroconf Host Profile Applicability Statement.

I know that some people disagree.

Peter

Peter van der Stok                Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven
Bldg: WDC 1-015                  Prof. Holstlaan 4
Phone: +31 40 2742649       5656 AA Eindhoven
Fax:      +31 40 2745033       The Netherlands
Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com

--=_alternative 002EE2E0C1256B27_=-- From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Wed Dec 19 10:17:23 2001 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29233 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:17:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4173391230; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:17:10 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0969091231; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:17:09 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE5E91230 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:17:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7F1B85DE0B; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:17:08 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@merit.edu Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443F85DE02 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:17:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from tsg1 ([12.81.70.47]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20011219151706.GWYP941.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@tsg1>; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:17:06 +0000 Message-ID: <00cf01c188a0$2b9192b0$020aff0c@tsg1> From: "todd glassey" To: , "Jim Busse" Cc: , References: Subject: proposed change to the "Subject Header" from this WG Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:16:42 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CC_01C1885D.1C05C200" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2505.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2505.0000 Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00CC_01C1885D.1C05C200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey List Manager - Is there a way to get something like [zeroconf] or = [zc] added in as the basis of each subject line so these can be filtered = properly and I and others dont miss them. Todd ------=_NextPart_000_00CC_01C1885D.1C05C200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey List Manager - Is there a way to = get something=20 like [zeroconf] or [zc] added in as the basis of each subject line so = these can=20 be filtered properly and I and others dont miss them.
 
Todd
 
  ------=_NextPart_000_00CC_01C1885D.1C05C200-- From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Wed Dec 19 12:22:59 2001 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02043 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:22:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 191E891205; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:22:52 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DB57F91231; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:22:51 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47F791205 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:22:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 955F35DE1E; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:22:50 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@merit.edu Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4505DD97 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with ESMTP id fBJHMOi04562; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:22:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200112191722.fBJHMOi04562@astro.cs.utk.edu> X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/ From: Keith Moore To: "todd glassey" Cc: peter.van.der.stok@philips.com, "Jim Busse" , rob.udink@philips.com, zeroconf@merit.edu Subject: Re: proposed change to the "Subject Header" from this WG In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:16:42 PST." <00cf01c188a0$2b9192b0$020aff0c@tsg1> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:22:24 -0500 Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > Hey List Manager - Is there a way to get something like [zeroconf] or [zc] > added in as the basis of each subject line so these can be filtered properly > and I and others dont miss them. arrgh. please don't. I'm sick and tired of those frobs polluting subject lines. if the list is run properly, and your mail delivery works properly, you should be able to filter/collate on the return-path header. Keith From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Wed Dec 19 13:07:41 2001 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02979 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:07:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2369991231; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:07:31 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EDA3B91232; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:07:30 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11AE191231 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:07:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D46255DE0D; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:07:29 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@merit.edu Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B606A5DD96 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:07:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from SERVER.ACM.org ([63.199.7.253]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GOL00I8HROGMR@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for ZeroConf@Merit.edu; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:07:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:07:19 -0800 From: Peter Johansson Subject: Re: proposed change to the "Subject Header" from this WG In-reply-to: <200112191722.fBJHMOi04562@astro.cs.utk.edu> X-Sender: Celeborn@PostOffice.PacBell.net To: Zero Configuration Message-id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011219100531.03876b00@PostOffice.PacBell.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <"Your message of Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:16:42 PST." <00cf01c188a0$2b9192b0$020aff0c@tsg1> Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT At 12:22 PM 12/19/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote: >if the list is run properly, and your mail delivery works properly, you >should be able to filter/collate on the return-path header. I have no trouble filtering on the Sender: field (in this case, owner-zeroconf@merit.edu). I, too, would argue against cluttering the subject line. Regards, Peter Johansson Congruent Software, Inc. 98 Colorado Avenue Berkeley, CA 94707 (510) 527-3926 (510) 527-3856 FAX PJohansson@ACM.org From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Wed Dec 19 14:01:20 2001 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04298 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:01:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D16BD91232; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:00:14 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9D6AE91233; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:00:14 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CEED91232 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:00:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E40DE5DE08; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:45:20 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: zeroconf@merit.edu Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8BD5DE04 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:45:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from tsg1 ([12.81.79.26]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20011219184519.RSAM7926.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@tsg1>; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:45:19 +0000 Message-ID: <01ae01c188bd$411eab50$020aff0c@tsg1> From: "todd glassey" To: "Peter Johansson" , "Zero Configuration" References: <"Your message of Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:16:42 PST." <00cf01c188a0$2b9192b0$020aff0c@tsg1> <5.1.0.14.2.20011219100531.03876b00@PostOffice.PacBell.net> Subject: Re: proposed change to the "Subject Header" from this WG Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:44:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2505.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2505.0000 Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter you are wrong I think - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Johansson" To: "Zero Configuration" Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:07 AM Subject: Re: proposed change to the "Subject Header" from this WG > At 12:22 PM 12/19/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > >if the list is run properly, and your mail delivery works properly, you > >should be able to filter/collate on the return-path header. > > I have no trouble filtering on the Sender: field (in this case, > owner-zeroconf@merit.edu). But you can't see the sender field with most mail tools - and there is nothing stopping people from placing the ZeroConf on the CC line so that the FILTER for ZC would have to be on all lines. And if you look at what pressing the reply buton does to this email. It said the Sender in this case is 'From: "Peter Johansson" ' so here the ZC rule would fail as well. Myself - I think that this is a personal issue with virtually all who objected. and that there are no real good reasons for not putting better tags into the HEADER or at least consistant ones. > > I, too, would argue against cluttering the subject line. Why - what in particular makes it easier to see ZeroConf in a list of subjects? > > > Regards, > > Peter Johansson > > Congruent Software, Inc. > 98 Colorado Avenue > Berkeley, CA 94707 > > (510) 527-3926 > (510) 527-3856 FAX > > PJohansson@ACM.org >