Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Changes to netnews header registrations

[Julien ÉLIE <[e-mail]>]

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,

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Pour célébrer ce jour heureux, buvons un coup, buvons-en deux. »
   (Aristophane)