Re: [apps-discuss] [Ietf-message-headers] Changes to netnews header registrations (correction)
Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> Mon, 16 May 2016 08:32 UTC
Return-Path: <gk@ninebynine.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25D812B04C; Mon, 16 May 2016 01:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6zOwdXJd3R94; Mon, 16 May 2016 01:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E207612B007; Mon, 16 May 2016 01:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207]) by relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1b2DwZ-0002eT-mi; Mon, 16 May 2016 09:32:03 +0100
Received: from [104.238.169.54] (helo=sasharissa.local) by smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1b2DwY-0002w4-G0; Mon, 16 May 2016 09:32:03 +0100
Message-ID: <573985BD.1060201@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:33:01 +0100
From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julien ÉLIE <julien@trigofacile.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, ietf-message-headers@ietf.org, usefor@ietf.org
References: <573572C7.4020408@ninebynine.org> <9ea7e62b-9a21-1102-eb3e-e12b574b9e89@trigofacile.com> <573982D3.1090106@ninebynine.org>
In-Reply-To: <573982D3.1090106@ninebynine.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/XDljpqC9gFJX69GG42fDuT_XSR8>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Ietf-message-headers] Changes to netnews header registrations (correction)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 08:32:07 -0000
On 16/05/2016 09:20, Graham Klyne wrote: > Hi Julien, > > Thanks for your update and confirmation of the affected fields. > > TL;DR: I don't propose to recommend the additional changes you suggest as I'm > not seeing that they really contribute to the purpose of the registry (cf. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-2.2.2). That link should have been https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-1. Sorry. #g -- > > > In slightly more detail, I offer the following reasons: > > 1. My rationale in suggesting the changes I did was to help keep the registry > reasonably aligned with the relevant IANA considerations RFC sections. The > additional headers you mention don't appear in the document IANA considerations. > > 2. With reference to the X-headers you mention, I see little point in adding > new, non-standard headers to the registry simply to indicate they are now > obsolete. (There could be a case for doing this if they are in widespread > use, but I think that should be a separate discussion, and a new RFC with its > own IANA considerations section. I suspect it's not worth the effort!) > > 3. The other headers you mention are not substantively changed by RFC 5536: > the restrictions noted are specifically with respect to the netnews protocol, > and as such are not really relevant to the registry purpose. > > 4. I did consider that "netnews" might be added to the protocol options for > the MIME-version and Content-* header fields you mention, but as they are > already registered as MIME headers that doesn't seem to serve any useful > purpose (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-2.2.2). > > #g > -- > > > On 13/05/2016 16:20, Julien ÉLIE wrote: >> Hi Graham, >> >> First of all, thanks for reviewing the request I sent. >> I add the USEFOR IETF WG in copy of this message, in case they wish to comment. >> >> >>> As reviewer for the IANA message headers registry >>> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml), >>> I've received a request to change references to rename >>> "[Son-of-1036]" references to "[RFC1849]"? This document is now >>> published as a historic RFC. >>> >>> I propose to make a recommendation that goes beyond the original >>> request, and as such I thought I should submit my proposed >>> recommendation to public review. >>> >>> I think the requested change is appropriate with respect to the >>> following message header fields: >>> >>> Also-control >>> Article-names >>> Article-updates >>> See-also >>> >>> (Did I miss any?) >> >> These are indeed the 4 message header fields obsoleted by RFC1849. >> >> >>> I also think that RFC5536 should be cited for these headers, as it is >>> this document that formally declared them to be obsolete >>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-6). >> >> Yes, RFC5536 can be cited instead of, or along with, RFC1849. >> >> >>> While we're at it, I'd suggest also citing RFC5536 for the following >>> header fields, also obsoleted by that document >>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-3.3 and #section-6): >>> >>> Date-Received netnews obsoleted [RFC0850] >>> Posting-Version netnews obsoleted [RFC0850] >>> Relay-Version netnews obsoleted [RFC0850] >>> NNTP-Posting-Date netnews obsoleted >>> NNTP-Posting-Host netnews obsoleted [RFC2980] >>> >>> If I hear no objection within a few days, I'll pass this recommendaton >>> to IANA. >> >> Couldn't X-Trace and X-Complaints-To header fields also be added to that list? >> >> X-Trace netnews obsoleted [RFC5536] >> X-Complaints-To netnews obsoleted [RFC5536] >> >> They are indeed mentioned at the same time as NNTP-Posting-Host in Section 3.2.8 >> of RFC5536, and are no longer useful with Injection-Info header field: >> >> NOTE: Some of this information has previously been sent in non- >> standardized header fields such as NNTP-Posting-Host, X-Trace, >> X-Complaints-To, and others. Once a news server generates an >> Injection-Info header field, it should have no need to send these >> non-standard header fields. >> >> >> >> >> While we're at it, couldn't MIME-related header fields also be added as standard >> for netnews? >> >> MIME-Version netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] >> Content-Type netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] >> Content-Transfer-Encoding netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] >> Content-Disposition netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] >> Content-Language netnews standard [RFC5536][RFC5322] >> >> As a matter of fact, Section 3.2 of RFC5536 speaks of them, with added >> restrictions in syntax: >> >> None of the header fields appearing in this section are required to >> appear in every article, but some of them may be required in certain >> types of articles. Further discussion of these requirements appears >> in [RFC5537] and [USEAGE]. >> >> The header fields Comments, Keywords, Reply-To, and Sender are used >> in Netnews articles in the same circumstances and with the same >> meanings as those specified in [RFC5322], with the added restrictions >> detailed above in Section 2.2. Multiple occurrences of the Keywords >> header field are not permitted. >> >> comments = "Comments:" SP unstructured CRLF >> >> keywords = "Keywords:" SP phrase *("," phrase) CRLF >> >> reply-to = "Reply-To:" SP address-list CRLF >> >> sender = "Sender:" SP mailbox CRLF >> >> The MIME header fields MIME-Version, Content-Type, Content-Transfer- >> Encoding, Content-Disposition, and Content-Language are used in >> Netnews articles in the same circumstances and with the same meanings >> as those specified in [RFC2045], [RFC2183], and [RFC3282], with the >> added restrictions detailed above in Section 2.2. >> >> >> Thanks, >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-message-headers mailing list > Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers >
- [apps-discuss] Changes to netnews header registra… Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] Changes to netnews header regi… Julien ÉLIE
- Re: [apps-discuss] Changes to netnews header regi… Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Ietf-message-headers] Changes… Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] Changes to netnews header regi… Julien ÉLIE