Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 and draft-moonesamy-rfc2919bis-01

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On 07/Jan/12 23:00, S Moonesamy wrote:
> At 11:02 07-01-2012, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> 
> From Section 2:
> 
>  "Using the domain name space as a basis for the List
>   Identifier namespace, it is intended to leverage an
>   existing name space structure to generate a unique
>   identifier."
> 
> It means that it looks like DNS but it is not DNS.  See comments below.

If it doesn't have to be a real DNS name, the reason to treat
".invalid" as a special case becomes rather obscure.

> Nested lists did not disappear because of a definition.  It is because
> people do not know about it, that they prefer simple things, or that
> the sites that used it no longer have a need for it.

So there is an implied "if you don't know what a nested list is, you
may safely skip this section."

> RFC 2369 was published in 1998 and RFC 2919 was published in 2001. 
> They were not written by the same people.  That may be why List-Id is
> in its own RFC.

Since you are somewhat diluting the spec, you might as well have
merged it with 2369bis.  Why not?

>> Yup, there was a MUST NOT in Section 2.  What's the advantage of
>> relaxing that requirement?
> 
> It avoids DNS wars.

Whazzat?  I thought DNS was developed for civilian purposes only...

In any case, I'd substitute "recommended" with either "RECOMMENDED" or
a synonym like "suggested", in the third line below:

   While it is perfectly acceptable for a List Identifier to be
   completely independent of the domain name of the host machine
   servicing the mailing list, it is recommended that the owner of a
   mailing list avoids generating List Identifiers in any domain name
   space for which they do not have authority.

>> IMHO, technical specifications should provide grips and holds for law
> 
> I would have to find a lawyer in the E.U. for legal advice about the
> text to add.  As it is going to be expensive, please do not ask me to
> pay for that.

Quite the opposite way around:  It is the EU (or Canada) who will pay
you a consultancy when they'll need to legally nail who is in control
of a list's operations :^)