Re: Moderation issues
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> Mon, 01 January 2007 00:06 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H1AhD-0001Dg-HS for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:06:31 -0500
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H1AhB-0007ek-SG for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:06:31 -0500
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l0104BHP080290 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:04:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l0104B5O080289; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:04:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l0104AiF080283 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:04:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu)
Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2772E4C879 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57714BF8C for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:04:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C0020E7D82; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:04:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
To: ietf-usefor@imc.org
Subject: Re: Moderation issues
In-Reply-To: <45983A9F.A55@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:33:03 +0100")
Organization: The Eyrie
References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <878xh38l9j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45899A0C.2BEC@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87y7oqimka.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <459691F0.7624@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87irft2s89.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> <45983A9F.A55@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:04:09 -0800
Message-ID: <87ejqfy5mu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0770535483960d190d4a0d020e7060bd
Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> This area is not going to get any better until there's a strong >> authentication system for moderator approvals. Until then, anything we >> write about the mechanics of this is written on quicksand; in practice, >> there are a bunch of ad hoc conventions that are not suitable for >> standardization. > If we can't identify a least common denominator or a "KISS" procedure > we're forced to state that X-Posts affecting more than one moderated > group are not covered by the spec. and be done with it. I can accept saying that any crossposts between two moderated groups will have to be worked out between the two moderators via means not covered by the standard. I think what we do have now is a minor improvement over that and was the result of a long working group debate, so I wouldn't agree with removing it without clear working group consensus and would oppose that change, but I can see an argument for leaving it unstandardized. > From my POV (moderators as part of the protocol) modifying the content > is an abomination. But if your "higher-layer moderators" do it anyway, > then yes, of course they MUST use their own Message-ID. While they're > at it they could also use their own From, and formulate their text as > citation giving credits to the submitter of the original text as needed. > So I'd be happy if you simply write that moderated groups transporting > modified content are out of scope. We could then focus on the straight > forward accept / reject case, and get that right. We could also say that moderated groups in general are out of scope, which would be an even more useful simplification and about as productive in producing a standard that lets people write interoperable software and understand what assumptions they can and can't make about how Netnews works. For me, that's the goal here. I want to see a protocol standard published that people can use to write Netnews software that interoperates with the software that's already out there. If your software assumes that messages to moderated newsgroups will either be posted verbatim or rejected with a message to the original poster, your software will break in the real world. I want to give you guidance that you can rely on, rather than guidance that's pure but wrong. If I were designing a new protocol to fix all the problems with Netnews, it would be a lot different. > There's also nothing preventing all peers of news.clara.net to reject > all articles containing the word "viagra", nevertheless they don't do > it, and we won't allow it. We do allow it and should, because things exactly like that do in fact happen and software has to be aware that they can and do happen so that it can make appropriate assumptions and interoperate. The protocol document is not the appropriate place for us to outlaw all of the things that have previously annoyed us about the operation of some news server. We need to stay focused here on defining the *protocol*, namely how messages are transmitted if that transmission is authorized and how protocol commands are communicated, not telling people how they may and may not configure their software. See, for instance, RFC 2821, which similarly makes it quite clear that a given mail server may reject messsages for whatever reasons it chooses and only defines the protocol for offering them, processing them if desired, and communicating the results clearly. >> What if the two moderators decide to multipost the message instead of >> crosspost it? > USEPRO must be clear enough that they know why it's imperative to change > the Message-ID for this stunt. If most readers immediately understand > why that's necessary it's good enough. (And IMO s-o-1036 managed this). Indeed. I would hope that it's an obvious implication of several points of the duties of relaying and serving agents, not to mention the definition of a message identifier and the general principle in my draft about the intent of the Netnews protocol. >> In practice, I'd just explain to the poster of the cancel that no one >> honors cancels any more anyway > You can't specify something if you don't believe in the concept, and v.v. Sure I can, but anyway, that's beside the point. My server is one of the few that *does* still honor cancel messages, so in this context, I'm the rare true believer (or at least someone who thinks that the drawbacks don't actually outweigh the benefits) and would actually be exaggerating to the person since I'm a counter-example. But it's still the fastest approximation of the truth for most of the situations in which this argument arises. "Few news servers honor cancels" is probably better, though. Plus, this is all from the Usenet perspective. Cancel messages are still useful in many other, smaller Netnews networks with better authorization policies (and in those networks are quite frequently not issued by the poster). > We can at least address the "obvious" issues like the format of the mail > sent from a server to a moderator. It's perfectly annoying to discuss > this issue again and again with folks claiming that all mails they care > about have 2821-From == 2822-From, and anything else is nonsense. I certainly wouldn't want to attempt to explain in specific detail the format that you get if you don't use encapsulation. I doubt it is describable except in generalizations like "it looks as if someone took a Netnews message and wedged it into the mail system sideways and then jumped up and down on it until an SMTP server reluctantly accepted it." I can tell you exactly how INN constructs an unencapsulated message to a moderator and how it determines the address to which to send it, but I don't think the result would be useful to put in a protocol document, nor would it quite reflect how Diablo does it, or DNews, or C News, or Typhoon. We're having to pick our battles here; we're not specifying pgpverify either, which is in widespread use, or PGPMoose, which is in lesser but still significant use, or the actsync protocol, or Xref slaving, or UUCP batching, or feed patterns, or any number of other interesting things that real news servers do. > We don't need to go as far as an "updates 3834", but we can't simply > ignore the issue. The part of NetNews using SMTP has to follow the > rules of engagement in the war on spam. I'm pretty sure that, in this area, given the current energy of this working group, and given the tangle that results as soon as anyone starts talking about spam filtering, our choices are to ignore this issue or to give up and never publish. Right now, my document basically says that the method whereby messages are conveyed to a moderator is outside the scope of the protocol, except that if you want to use SMTP, here's how you SHOULD construct the message that you're going to send. While this isn't ideal from the perspective of completely describing how to write a news server, I think it's the best available compromise towards the goal of being able to publish a protocol specification. If we get into things like SPF, we're really going to be here all day. Anyway, I have other strong feelings about SPF that are really out of scope for this working group and don't see any point in investing the time and energy here to get into a real argument about it, so I'm going to decline that discussion. >> Do you have a specific wording change in mind that would make the model >> better for people who don't have that background, based on what we've >> discussed? > Upper case the "recommended" near "minimal changes". Don't talk about > content modifications, unless it's a statement that it's out of scope. > If you like the "moderator manual" add it to the informative references. I believe those changes would make the model considerably worse from the perspective of predicting what will happen in a real Netnews network. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l0104BHP080290 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:04:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l0104B5O080289; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:04:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l0104AiF080283 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:04:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2772E4C879 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:04:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57714BF8C for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:04:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C0020E7D82; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:04:09 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Moderation issues In-Reply-To: <45983A9F.A55@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:33:03 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <878xh38l9j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45899A0C.2BEC@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87y7oqimka.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <459691F0.7624@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87irft2s89.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> <45983A9F.A55@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:04:09 -0800 Message-ID: <87ejqfy5mu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> This area is not going to get any better until there's a strong >> authentication system for moderator approvals. Until then, anything we >> write about the mechanics of this is written on quicksand; in practice, >> there are a bunch of ad hoc conventions that are not suitable for >> standardization. > If we can't identify a least common denominator or a "KISS" procedure > we're forced to state that X-Posts affecting more than one moderated > group are not covered by the spec. and be done with it. I can accept saying that any crossposts between two moderated groups will have to be worked out between the two moderators via means not covered by the standard. I think what we do have now is a minor improvement over that and was the result of a long working group debate, so I wouldn't agree with removing it without clear working group consensus and would oppose that change, but I can see an argument for leaving it unstandardized. > From my POV (moderators as part of the protocol) modifying the content > is an abomination. But if your "higher-layer moderators" do it anyway, > then yes, of course they MUST use their own Message-ID. While they're > at it they could also use their own From, and formulate their text as > citation giving credits to the submitter of the original text as needed. > So I'd be happy if you simply write that moderated groups transporting > modified content are out of scope. We could then focus on the straight > forward accept / reject case, and get that right. We could also say that moderated groups in general are out of scope, which would be an even more useful simplification and about as productive in producing a standard that lets people write interoperable software and understand what assumptions they can and can't make about how Netnews works. For me, that's the goal here. I want to see a protocol standard published that people can use to write Netnews software that interoperates with the software that's already out there. If your software assumes that messages to moderated newsgroups will either be posted verbatim or rejected with a message to the original poster, your software will break in the real world. I want to give you guidance that you can rely on, rather than guidance that's pure but wrong. If I were designing a new protocol to fix all the problems with Netnews, it would be a lot different. > There's also nothing preventing all peers of news.clara.net to reject > all articles containing the word "viagra", nevertheless they don't do > it, and we won't allow it. We do allow it and should, because things exactly like that do in fact happen and software has to be aware that they can and do happen so that it can make appropriate assumptions and interoperate. The protocol document is not the appropriate place for us to outlaw all of the things that have previously annoyed us about the operation of some news server. We need to stay focused here on defining the *protocol*, namely how messages are transmitted if that transmission is authorized and how protocol commands are communicated, not telling people how they may and may not configure their software. See, for instance, RFC 2821, which similarly makes it quite clear that a given mail server may reject messsages for whatever reasons it chooses and only defines the protocol for offering them, processing them if desired, and communicating the results clearly. >> What if the two moderators decide to multipost the message instead of >> crosspost it? > USEPRO must be clear enough that they know why it's imperative to change > the Message-ID for this stunt. If most readers immediately understand > why that's necessary it's good enough. (And IMO s-o-1036 managed this). Indeed. I would hope that it's an obvious implication of several points of the duties of relaying and serving agents, not to mention the definition of a message identifier and the general principle in my draft about the intent of the Netnews protocol. >> In practice, I'd just explain to the poster of the cancel that no one >> honors cancels any more anyway > You can't specify something if you don't believe in the concept, and v.v. Sure I can, but anyway, that's beside the point. My server is one of the few that *does* still honor cancel messages, so in this context, I'm the rare true believer (or at least someone who thinks that the drawbacks don't actually outweigh the benefits) and would actually be exaggerating to the person since I'm a counter-example. But it's still the fastest approximation of the truth for most of the situations in which this argument arises. "Few news servers honor cancels" is probably better, though. Plus, this is all from the Usenet perspective. Cancel messages are still useful in many other, smaller Netnews networks with better authorization policies (and in those networks are quite frequently not issued by the poster). > We can at least address the "obvious" issues like the format of the mail > sent from a server to a moderator. It's perfectly annoying to discuss > this issue again and again with folks claiming that all mails they care > about have 2821-From == 2822-From, and anything else is nonsense. I certainly wouldn't want to attempt to explain in specific detail the format that you get if you don't use encapsulation. I doubt it is describable except in generalizations like "it looks as if someone took a Netnews message and wedged it into the mail system sideways and then jumped up and down on it until an SMTP server reluctantly accepted it." I can tell you exactly how INN constructs an unencapsulated message to a moderator and how it determines the address to which to send it, but I don't think the result would be useful to put in a protocol document, nor would it quite reflect how Diablo does it, or DNews, or C News, or Typhoon. We're having to pick our battles here; we're not specifying pgpverify either, which is in widespread use, or PGPMoose, which is in lesser but still significant use, or the actsync protocol, or Xref slaving, or UUCP batching, or feed patterns, or any number of other interesting things that real news servers do. > We don't need to go as far as an "updates 3834", but we can't simply > ignore the issue. The part of NetNews using SMTP has to follow the > rules of engagement in the war on spam. I'm pretty sure that, in this area, given the current energy of this working group, and given the tangle that results as soon as anyone starts talking about spam filtering, our choices are to ignore this issue or to give up and never publish. Right now, my document basically says that the method whereby messages are conveyed to a moderator is outside the scope of the protocol, except that if you want to use SMTP, here's how you SHOULD construct the message that you're going to send. While this isn't ideal from the perspective of completely describing how to write a news server, I think it's the best available compromise towards the goal of being able to publish a protocol specification. If we get into things like SPF, we're really going to be here all day. Anyway, I have other strong feelings about SPF that are really out of scope for this working group and don't see any point in investing the time and energy here to get into a real argument about it, so I'm going to decline that discussion. >> Do you have a specific wording change in mind that would make the model >> better for people who don't have that background, based on what we've >> discussed? > Upper case the "recommended" near "minimal changes". Don't talk about > content modifications, unless it's a statement that it's out of scope. > If you like the "moderator manual" add it to the informative references. I believe those changes would make the model considerably worse from the perspective of predicting what will happen in a real Netnews network. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBVNUigB078995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:30:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBVNUiCY078994; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:30:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBVNUhdO078988 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:30:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 452DB4C66F for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:30:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6A64C5AE for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:30:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 01554E7D82; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:30:42 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Control message propagation In-Reply-To: <45981C8D.7A0A@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:24:45 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87odpmil35.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45967D89.61C9@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87mz552tpb.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4597C513.6130@xyzzy.claranet.de> <873b6wt1bh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45981C8D.7A0A@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:30:42 -0800 Message-ID: <87irfry76l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > Not really, it just needs a numbered list in 2434bis, it's the 7th point > in chapter 4.1 of this I-D: > | RFC Required - RFC publication (either as IETF Submission or as an > | RFC Editor submission [RFC3932]) suffices. > Reserving x-verbs would cover points 1 / 2 (private / experimental use). > We don't need "expert review" or anything more restrictive than "RFC". I think requiring an RFC is too restrictive and think x-verbs are a bad idea that cause more problems than they solve in this area, so it would require more discussion than that. > It was your idea to add the OPTION of new control verbs, with the odd > effect of talking about newgroup + rmgroup "for example", as if there > are others. No, it was not my idea. It's how Netnews actually works and has for longer than I've been involved in it. From the first version of INN, you could drop in a handler for a brand new control message by doing nothing more than putting a shell script in a directory, and people did so to various ends. Adding a new group control message would also require changing one line of code in innd that classifies control messages as "newgroup-like" for propagation purposes, but that's trivial. That new control verbs weren't allowed was a pure artificial creation of previous documents (assuming one even read them that way) which I have attempted to bring in line with reality. Now we can, if the working group wants, discuss whether we want to try to change reality, but what I did was fix an inconsistency between what was on paper and how Netnews software actually works. >> Since relaying agents may reject messages for any reasons they chose, > This is not the case, compare usepro-06 chapter 6.3 points 1..8. They > must / should / may reject articles for the reasons specified in 1..8. I didn't realize that anyone in the working group didn't consider this principle implicit and assumed. I'm glad, in this case, that I made it explicit in my draft. Section 3.1 of my draft says: No Netnews agent is ever required to accept any article. It is common for injecting, relaying, and serving agents to reject well- formed articles for reasons of local policy (such as not wishing to carry a particular newsgroup or attempting to filter out unwanted articles). This document specifies how articles are to be treated if they are accepted and specifies some cases where they must be rejected, but an agent MAY always reject any article for other reasons than those stated here. I consider this principle to be at the core of how Netnews works and will strenuously object to any attempt to fail to include it in a protocol specification for Netnews (not to mention that an assumption that agents will only reject messages for well-defined reasons specified in the protocol document is catastrophically misleading if the goal if this is to produce a document that defines how Netnews works in the real world). >> I want to make it clear that many agents *will* reject unknown control >> messages (since that's what happens in practice). > That's fine, but why write so much about these hypothetical new control > messages if you don't believe in it ? If I don't believe in what? I certainly believe that it's possible to introduce new control messages; it's been done before. Many agents will reject them and many won't. It will take some time and general agreement with the new control message before they will have the propagation that one might desire, so in the interim people should have backup procedures available. None of this is horribly difficult. It just takes time and an idea that's worth the effort. >> It's standard to include language of this sort for extension >> mechanisms; something like this has been in every other RFC that I've >> worked with that has optional extensions. > I don't recall any "MUST ignore or reject unknown" in RfCs I've read, do > you have an example ? By "of this sort" I meant stating explicitly what should be done with unrecognized extensions. The common language, as you point out, is "MUST ignore", which is present in, for example, RFCs 2060, 2251, 2449, 2616, 2919, 3501, 3546, 3977, and 4121, just to pick out a few RFCs that I have lying around. Because a Netnews agent MAY reject any message it choses, it MAY reject an unknown control message rather than ignoring it, so saying in this case that such messages "MUST be ignored or rejected" is more complete and avoids even the possible perception of self-contradiction. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBVMioDH076530 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:44:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBVMio6h076529; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:44:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBVMilQp076523 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:44:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H19Px-0002kJ-2n for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:44:37 +0100 Received: from du-001-124.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.124]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:44:37 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-124.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:44:37 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Moderation issues Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:33:03 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 160 Message-ID: <45983A9F.A55@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <878xh38l9j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45899A0C.2BEC@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87y7oqimka.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <459691F0.7624@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87irft2s89.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-124.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > This area is not going to get any better until there's a strong > authentication system for moderator approvals. Until then, anything > we write about the mechanics of this is written on quicksand; in > practice, there are a bunch of ad hoc conventions that are not > suitable for standardization. If we can't identify a least common denominator or a "KISS" procedure we're forced to state that X-Posts affecting more than one moderated group are not covered by the spec. and be done with it. It's not the only area, we'll have similar problems with spam cancels, with gateways, and with anything-AUTH. > Do you want the moderator to retain the message ID if they've made > substantial changes to the post? I wouldn't wish to discuss this case. For Netnews as protocol the combination of Message-ID, newsgroups, path, and poster IS the PDU, the "content" (body) is only there because the protocol has to transport something. Modifying the content is the business of a higher layer. From my POV (moderators as part of the protocol) modifying the content is an abomination. But if your "higher-layer moderators" do it anyway, then yes, of course they MUST use their own Message-ID. While they're at it they could also use their own From, and formulate their text as citation giving credits to the submitter of the original text as needed. So I'd be happy if you simply write that moderated groups transporting modified content are out of scope. We could then focus on the straight forward accept / reject case, and get that right. > What if the moderator decides to remove the newsgroup to which the > post was previously approved? Not allowed wrt our layer, Netnews as protocol. > There's nothing preventing them from doing that, There's also nothing preventing all peers of news.clara.net to reject all articles containing the word "viagra", nevertheless they don't do it, and we won't allow it. And when I found that nanas is empty except from the X-posted FAQs I complained, and they fixed it, but I digress. > there are some moderated newsgroups where the moderation policy permits > that (as much as I think it's a horrible idea for social reasons). Okay, then let's say (or is that pretend ?) that "moderation policy" is an incarnation of a higher layer protocol, and out of scope for us. > What if the two moderators decide to multipost the message instead of > crosspost it? USEPRO must be clear enough that they know why it's imperative to change the Message-ID for this stunt. If most readers immediately understand why that's necessary it's good enough. (And IMO s-o-1036 managed this). The minor point that the multi-post is a stupid idea to start with is a mere corollary. The protocol standard must be clear about the principles of operation - figuring out how to break the rules is out of scope. > In practice, I'd just explain to the poster of the cancel that no one > honors cancels any more anyway You can't specify something if you don't believe in the concept, and v.v. The only case of "cancel doesn't work at all anymore" I'm aware of is "Supersedes" on news.clara.net. Otherwise cancels worked when I used them, but admittedly it might be some years that I used it, and it was in de.all (not counting local hierarchies). >> That procedure has to be outlined in the standard. > Apart from simply disagreeing in general, I don't believe this is > feasible for a standards-track protocol specification. We can at least address the "obvious" issues like the format of the mail sent from a server to a moderator. It's perfectly annoying to discuss this issue again and again with folks claiming that all mails they care about have 2821-From == 2822-From, and anything else is nonsense. So let's say that I try to post in e.g. nanas (the only moderated NG I've successfuly used so far, apart from misc.test.moderated), for that I can in theory use News-From: nobody@ In practice I used Reply-To: nobody@ with a bogus News-From, because the "higher layer protocol" for nanas allows this, but that's out of scope. I've no clue how news.t-online or clara.net transported my articles to nanas-bot, but let's say they used SMTP. To make it more interesting let's assume that nanas-bot sits behind an MX enforcing RFC 4408 (SPF). All goes well if the server uses a Return-Path to itself, i.e, 2821-From news@clara.net.example or similar. It FAILs as designed if they'd use a 2821-From: nobody@ (forging that based on the News-From). If they try to forge a 2821-From based on my bogus News-From it's worse (of course I made sure that it's TLD invalid as specified in USEFOR I-Ds at this time, but a decent MX trying to protect nanas-bot would reject this). So far it's simple, a reverse path in the spirit of the original SMTP works as designed. But some folks decided that RFC 821 / 346x / 3834 etc. etc. got it all wrong, besides OE doesn't display a Return-Path, and some calendar software abused as MUA is allegedly worse. Therefore they invented a "PRA" specified in RFC 4407. With that it starts to get complex: 2821-From: news@server.example => fine for 3834 + 4408 2822-From: nobody@ => assming I have a PRA policy Of course I don't have a PRA policy, but IESG and the SenderID folks claim that I'm wrong, and that my SPF policy is implicity a PRA-policy. Therefore the mail from my news server to nanas-bot would get a PRA FAIL, the IP used to talk with the MX before nanas-bot isn't permitted. It would be similar for users with real PRA-policies, therefore we can ignore the bit about SPF-policy-abused-as-PRA-policy. In essence the news server has to add a Resent-From: news@server.example It might get away with adding a Sender: news@server.example, but I've no clue how I could then submit an article for somebody else (e.g. Sender: me, News-From: you). We have to specify at least the first and simple part (2821-From = server, not 2821-From = poster). For the PRA stuff we could ignore it, because the IESG found that it's anyway incompatible with IETF standards. We should also specify why nanas-bot is supposed to ignore RFC 3834, and send its ACKs to the Reply-To or 2822-From, not to the 2821-From. As it does. We don't need to go as far as an "updates 3834", but we can't simply ignore the issue. The part of NetNews using SMTP has to follow the rules of engagement in the war on spam. > The envelope sender (assuming that's what you mean by Return-Path) > is precisely as reliable as the From header, namely not at all. > Spammers are not that stupid and forging the envelope sender is > trivial. Because they're not stupid they don't do this for SPF FAIL protected addresses, spammers / SPF publishers / SPF checkers all work together, a happy family. But nanas-bot or any other moderator might sit behind an SPF checker. Or behind a PRA-checker abusing SPF for its purposes, for details see <http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/senderid-appeal.htm> > Do you have a specific wording change in mind that would make the > model better for people who don't have that background, based on what > we've discussed? Upper case the "recommended" near "minimal changes". Don't talk about content modifications, unless it's a statement that it's out of scope. If you like the "moderator manual" add it to the informative references. Let's focus on simple cases, our layer, and more or less known traps and pitfalls like the "how to forward an article to a moderator with SMTP". News server admins have to get this right, and we have to tell them how. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBVKZAQj067486 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:35:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBVKZA54067485; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:35:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBVKZ7wV067478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:35:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H17OY-0000uD-Gm for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:35:02 +0100 Received: from du-001-124.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.124]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:35:02 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-124.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:35:02 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Control message propagation Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:24:45 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 67 Message-ID: <45981C8D.7A0A@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87odpmil35.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45967D89.61C9@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87mz552tpb.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4597C513.6130@xyzzy.claranet.de> <873b6wt1bh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-124.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: >> IMO that can't fly if relaying agents reject unknown stuff. We could >> create a IANA registry of control <verb>s, reserving x-whatever for >> experimental / unofficial <verb>s, and anything else to be defined in >> an RFC. > I don't think this is really necessary and it adds bulk and procedure > to the document and will mean a fair bit more discussion to figure out > review and registration procedures. Not really, it just needs a numbered list in 2434bis, it's the 7th point in chapter 4.1 of this I-D: | RFC Required - RFC publication (either as IETF Submission or as an | RFC Editor submission [RFC3932]) suffices. Reserving x-verbs would cover points 1 / 2 (private / experimental use). We don't need "expert review" or anything more restrictive than "RFC". It was your idea to add the OPTION of new control verbs, with the odd effect of talking about newgroup + rmgroup "for example", as if there are others. If you really want this we can also get it right, we've all ingredients for a proper IANA registry, some obsolete verbs, some "real" verbs, and one hypothetical mvgroup to be specified elsewhere. If you don't really want this let's please get rid of the MAY and "for example" cruft, it's halfhearted and confusing. >> With a general "MUST ignore unknown", limiting "MAY reject unknown" >> to injecting agents. Or better removing the "reject" option. > Since relaying agents may reject messages for any reasons they chose, This is not the case, compare usepro-06 chapter 6.3 points 1..8. They must / should / may reject articles for the reasons specified in 1..8. Your points 1..10 in 3.5 are similar, just add what's missing - maybe relaying agents need to be free to enforce an UDP no matter what their peers do, to reject obvious spam, the works. Don't say "any reason", that's censorship and evil. Articles MUST NOT disappear for unknown "any" reasons. It needs good reasons, and USEPRO is supposed to provide a list of good reasons, and ways to check this for observers. > I want to make it clear that many agents *will* reject unknown control > messages (since that's what happens in practice). That's fine, but why write so much about these hypothetical new control messages if you don't believe in it ? And it wasn't clear for me, some lines above I still thought that you might really want to support new control messages. So I am (or was) confused. "Reject crap" is a clear directive - unlike "MAY send / accept crap + MUST ignore / reject crap". > It's standard to include language of this sort for extension mechanisms; > something like this has been in every other RFC that I've worked with > that has optional extensions. I don't recall any "MUST ignore or reject unknown" in RfCs I've read, do you have an example ? If the idea is to protect the network from unknown and potentially dangerous crap "reject" is good, if the idea is to allow unknown future extensions "ignore" is good, but any party doing whatever it likes better is dubious. For me it sounds like "MUST do X or not X". Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBVHaKcK053028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:36:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBVHaK27053027; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:36:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBVHaJXb053021 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:36:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0406C4C2F3 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:36:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB05F4C068 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B006DE7D82; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:36:18 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Control message propagation In-Reply-To: <4597C513.6130@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:11:31 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87odpmil35.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45967D89.61C9@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87mz552tpb.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4597C513.6130@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:36:18 -0800 Message-ID: <873b6wt1bh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > IMO that can't fly if relaying agents reject unknown stuff. We could > create a IANA registry of control <verb>s, reserving x-whatever for > experimental / unofficial <verb>s, and anything else to be defined in > an RFC. I don't think this is really necessary and it adds bulk and procedure to the document and will mean a fair bit more discussion to figure out review and registration procedures. I can see the merit, but personally I'd prefer not to. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though. > With a general "MUST ignore unknown", limiting "MAY reject unknown" to > injecting agents. Or better removing the "reject" option. Since relaying agents may reject messages for any reasons they chose, listing reject as an option doesn't change anything about the requirements for a relaying agent and makes it clearer in the text what the options are for an implementor. I want to make it clear that many agents *will* reject unknown control messages (since that's what happens in practice). > A "MUST ignore or reject unknown" is IMHO pointless, what else should > they do ? Attempt to guess at the meaning or bother the news administrator. It's standard to include language of this sort for extension mechanisms; something like this has been in every other RFC that I've worked with that has optional extensions. >> Two reasons not to make it a MUST: >> * Posting a cancel message to a test newsgroup will result in >> autoreplies from some sites, so it's conventional to drop test >> newsgroups from cancel messages. > The first thing I did on any server I've used (all 5 of them :-) was to > post an article in the local test group and cancel it, checking out if > if that works as expected, and where I'd find the cancel. I also did > that in de.test and de.alt.test (for experiments with X-Posts and with > Google's "purge" procedure). No trouble with checkbots anywhere, and I > think we can ignore checkbot oddities while discussing cancel standards. I don't agree. The plural of anecdote is not data and this has been a known problem for many years. Autoresponders come and go, different test newsgroups behave differently, and it's very easy to cause this problem when writing a naive autoresponder. >> * Some hierarchies post all spam cancels to a designated newsgroup >> to make it easier for people who don't want them to opt out by not >> accepting the group. > Spam cancels intentionally violate official rules, following their own > standards. Spam cancels and other sorts of administrative cancels are compliant with my protocol spec and I want to keep it that way. They're an authorization problem, not a protocol problem. I think the current text is fine. It reflects what news servers currently do when they honor cancels, and I don't believe that tweaking the language will provide sufficient practical benefit for it to be useful. The Security Considerations section will have to remain anyway given the number of existing servers that work that way. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBVFhCtH045514 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:43:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBVFhC03045513; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:43:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBVFh9U1045503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:43:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H12px-0002NR-DW for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:43:01 +0100 Received: from du-001-124.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.124]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:43:01 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-124.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:43:01 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Control message propagation Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:41:20 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 19 Message-ID: <4597DA20.960@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87odpmil35.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45967D89.61C9@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87mz552tpb.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4597C513.6130@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-124.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> > 1: cancel in A + B: sane > 2: cancel in A: bad but acceptable > 3: cancel in C + B: odd variant of (2) > 4: cancel in C: bad, unacceptable More about that for "Supersedes", if an article was posted in group X, and the poster a.s.a.p. decided that it should go to group Y instead: a: NG: X,Y; Fup2: Y : that's clear for folks only seeing group X b: NG: Y : bad, old article mysteriously vanishes from X c: cancel in X new article in Y : obviously okay The same rule (Russ' SHOULD match all NGs + my MUST match at least one) apparently also works for "Supersedes". Actually "Supersedes" is worse than "cancel", should we say "MUST match all NGs" for a "Supersedes" ? Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBVESndN039895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:28:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBVESnAD039894; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:28:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBVESk8e039886 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:28:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H11g1-000097-La for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:28:41 +0100 Received: from du-001-124.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.124]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:28:41 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-124.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:28:41 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Control message propagation Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:11:31 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 65 Message-ID: <4597C513.6130@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87odpmil35.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45967D89.61C9@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87mz552tpb.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-124.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > The standard makes it clear that anyone who wishes can invent a new > control message and start sending them. That's apparently a derivation from usepro-06 in your text, you have "MAY send or accept whatever" with a "MUST ignore or reject unknown". IMO that can't fly if relaying agents reject unknown stuff. We could create a IANA registry of control <verb>s, reserving x-whatever for experimental / unofficial <verb>s, and anything else to be defined in an RFC. With a general "MUST ignore unknown", limiting "MAY reject unknown" to injecting agents. Or better removing the "reject" option. The IANA registry stuff is fairly simple, Harald has written a kind of "howto" (2434bis), and "defined in an RFC" is straight forward. A "MUST ignore or reject unknown" is IMHO pointless, what else should they do ? ####################################################################### [A cancel SHOULD match the newsgroups of the original article] >> Is that good enough for a MUST instead of a SHOULD ? Or an explicit >> OPTION to ignore cancels violating the SHOULD ? > Two reasons not to make it a MUST: > * Posting a cancel message to a test newsgroup will result in > autoreplies from some sites, so it's conventional to drop test > newsgroups from cancel messages. The first thing I did on any server I've used (all 5 of them :-) was to post an article in the local test group and cancel it, checking out if if that works as expected, and where I'd find the cancel. I also did that in de.test and de.alt.test (for experiments with X-Posts and with Google's "purge" procedure). No trouble with checkbots anywhere, and I think we can ignore checkbot oddities while discussing cancel standards. > * Some hierarchies post all spam cancels to a designated newsgroup > to make it easier for people who don't want them to opt out by not > accepting the group. Spam cancels intentionally violate official rules, following their own standards. I'd like an informative reference to Skirvin's cancel FAQ, but for USEPRO we need some minimal "normal" procedure. Tons of SHOULD not explaining why and when they're violated don't help. If your justification for a SHOULD instead of a MUST is "spam cancel" please say so explicitly, with an informative reference. I think we have four cases for an article X-posted in unmoderated groups A and B: 1: cancel in A + B: sane 2: cancel in A: bad but acceptable 3: cancel in C + B: odd variant of (2) 4: cancel in C: bad, unacceptable With that I get "at least one of the newsgroups of the cancel MUST match a newsgroup of the cancelled article" in addition to your SHOULD. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBUHiwL7055673; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:44:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBUHiwQG055672; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:44:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBUHitCi055665 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:44:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id F17B24C39B for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:44:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA764BFF5 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:44:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9AB11E7CFB; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:44:54 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Moderation issues (was: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07) In-Reply-To: <459691F0.7624@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:21:04 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <878xh38l9j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45899A0C.2BEC@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87y7oqimka.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <459691F0.7624@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:44:54 -0800 Message-ID: <87irft2s89.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> How? Could you provide some specific examples of what interoperability >> problems you believe could result? > The first moderator could note approved Message-IDs and cancel anything > else appearing in his group. I suppose. It would be rather pointless to do so at this point, given how few people support cancels, and those I know of who are doing this use PGPMoose instead (thus turning this into the digital signature case). This is a case of cross-posting between moderated groups, which I agree is kind of iffy already. In practice, one pretty much always works this out via special agreement between the moderators. We have a system described in our document that sort of works, but it still requires prior arrangement between the moderators to devise a way of noting that the message was already approved. Said prior arrangement could deal with issues such as this as well. This area is not going to get any better until there's a strong authentication system for moderator approvals. Until then, anything we write about the mechanics of this is written on quicksand; in practice, there are a bunch of ad hoc conventions that are not suitable for standardization. Again, I'll warn that trying to explore this area is going to go way off into the weeds for this working group. Do you want the moderator to retain the message ID if they've made substantial changes to the post? What if the moderator decides to remove the newsgroup to which the post was previously approved? There's nothing preventing them from doing that, and there are some moderated newsgroups where the moderation policy permits that (as much as I think it's a horrible idea for social reasons). What if the two moderators decide to multipost the message instead of crosspost it? Documenting how moderation is done on Netnews and getting consensus around recommendations is a document of its own and probably at least a year of work for an active IETF working group. It took longer than that the last time, and it's only gotten more complicated. >> cancels of a message in a moderated group have to be approved by the >> moderator anyway, > s/anyway/ideally/. Cancels can be approved by the author as well, they > don't need to be moderated. Hm. Well, I suppose that's a USEAGE question. I'd consider it questionable to self-approve *any* message to a moderated newsgroup, including a cancel, but I can see the argument the other way. It depends on how one views the nature of a moderated newsgroup. Certainly, on a server that enforces PGPMoose authentication, such a cancel would be ignored, but then cancels are generally ignored anyway. (In practice, I'd just explain to the poster of the cancel that no one honors cancels any more anyway and they're just creating controversy for themselves without accomplishing anything useful.) > Some cases I have in mind: > 1 - author submits article, moderator approves it, author decides to > withdraw his contribution. The author can send a cancel to the > moderator (for approval by the moderator), additionally (s)he can > send a self-approved (author's address) cancel. For cancels the > most important issue is speed. True, to what degree they're useful. It's really not feasible to withdraw a message once it's been posted, but ignoring that, I do see your point. > 2 - impostor submits article, moderator approves it, alleged author > cancels the fake. Somebody abused the From:-address and/or > Message-ID, therefore cancel it. Better, here, to notify the moderator since you also want to prevent the imposter from doing it again (and that's more important than chasing the first message with a cancel). >> It *has* to be. My moderated groups get hundreds of messages a day for >> which drop is the *only* valid implementation of reject. Those >> messages are spam with either no contact information at all or forged >> contact information. Any attempt on my part to do anything but drop >> those messages would leave me sending unsolicited e-mail or other >> communication to someone whose only involvement with the original >> message was to have their contact information forged by a spammer. > That procedure has to be outlined in the standard. Apart from simply disagreeing in general, I don't believe this is feasible for a standards-track protocol specification. > You can't just drop legit submissions without informing the author. Of course I can. It happens all the time and has for as long as there have been moderated newsgroups. You don't *want* moderators to drop legit submissions without informing the author, but that's a different statement. I understand why you want this, and in *most* cases I would agree. However, in practice, one simply cannot do this reliably without missing some legitimate submissions unless one is spamming addresses forged by spammers, since no spam detection method (including the human eye) is 100% reliable. > It has to be clear what the Return-Path is (= an address at the original > server), and that you'd use the From (or Reply-To) for a "normal" > reject. The envelope sender (assuming that's what you mean by Return-Path) is precisely as reliable as the From header, namely not at all. Spammers are not that stupid and forging the envelope sender is trivial. >> I would be very happy to see a document that describes those judgement >> calls, and indeed such a document was already written, as an I-D, a >> little over ten years ago. You can find it on the web as "NetNews >> Moderator's Handbook." > http://www.eff.org/Net_culture/Net_info/Technical/usenet_moderator_handbook.draft > Ten years might be a bit old for issues related to spam. It certainly is. It's too old for all sorts of things, although that document addresses many of the other judgement calls that moderators deal with, but it would desperately need an update. >> If we try to get into that material in the protocol specification, >> we're going to end up wandering *way* off into the weeds. > You could write "the procedure to do X or decide Y is not specified > here", but we need an overall model of what a moderated newsgroup is. I believe my current draft provides an accurate overall model of what a moderated newsgroup is at the Netnews protocol level, namely moderators *can* do anything they wish, but best practice says to make minimum modifications to approved posts. However, I come to this with a fairly intensive knowledge of how moderation works. Do you have a specific wording change in mind that would make the model better for people who don't have that background, based on what we've discussed? > So far I thought it's an NG where "something" can decide to reject or > accept submitted articles. Apparently your model includes content > modification and silently dropping articles. That's very different. Then this discussion has already served an educational purpose. That's a very good thing! I think that many people who have not moderated a newsgroup don't understand how Netnews moderation works at all, or don't understand the huge variety of actions different moderators in different groups take with posts. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBUHD73m053267; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:13:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBUHD7Q2053266; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:13:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBUHD6Pk053258 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:13:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 306E84C652 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:13:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79294C59D for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:13:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E1A5DE7CFB; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:13:04 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Control message propagation In-Reply-To: <45967D89.61C9@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:54:01 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87odpmil35.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45967D89.61C9@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:13:04 -0800 Message-ID: <87mz552tpb.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Exceptionally, control messages creating or removing newsgroups >> (newgroup or rmgroup control messages, for example) > Ignoring "mvgroup" the example is a complete enumeration, isn't it ? > The rest of the text doesn't make sense for a "checkgroups". Maybe > remove the parentheses. *Now*, but others may be introduced later and this should still hold, so it felt right to me to keep it general. The standard makes it clear that anyone who wishes can invent a new control message and start sending them. >> the following under cancel control messages: >> A cancel control message SHOULD have the same Newsgroups header field >> as the message it is cancelling so that it will attempt to reach the >> same news servers as the original message. >> and the following in Security Considerations: >> Cancel control messages are not required to have the same Newsgroups >> header field as the messages they are cancelling and, since they are >> sometimes processed before the original message is received, it may >> not be possible to check that they do. This allows a malicious >> poster to inject a cancel control message for an article in a >> moderated newsgroup without adding an Approved header field to the >> control message, and to hide malicious cancel control messages from >> some reading agents by using a different Newsgroups header field so >> that the cancel control message is not accepted by all news servers >> that accepted the original message. > So far it's clear. Is that good enough for a MUST instead of a SHOULD ? > Or an explicit OPTION to ignore cancels violating the SHOULD ? Two reasons not to make it a MUST: * Posting a cancel message to a test newsgroup will result in autoreplies from some sites, so it's conventional to drop test newsgroups from cancel messages. * Some hierarchies post all spam cancels to a designated newsgroup to make it easier for people who don't want them to opt out by not accepting the group. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBUHAPqP053130; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:10:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBUHAPLw053129; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:10:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBUHAObF053123 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:10:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 228214C34B for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:10:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189594BF2F for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:10:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 078B6E7CFB; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:10:22 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: More Path notes In-Reply-To: <4596775D.1813@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:27:41 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87sleyh06a.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> <4596775D.1813@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:10:21 -0800 Message-ID: <87r6uh2ttu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Some existing implementations treat <path-identity> as case- >> sensitive, some case-insensitive. The <path-identity> therefore >> SHOULD be all lowercase and implementations SHOULD compare >> identities case-insensitively. > Messy. No chance for s/SHOULD/MUST/ ? I could see a MUST for the second one. I'm leery of telling people they have to change their path identity. What do others think? -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBUGPmw3050102; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:25:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBUGPmUn050101; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:25:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBUGPkKJ050095 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:25:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H0h1j-0002vk-8z for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:25:43 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.71 ([212.82.251.71]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:25:43 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.71 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:25:43 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:21:04 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 78 Message-ID: <459691F0.7624@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <878xh38l9j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45899A0C.2BEC@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87y7oqimka.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.71 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: >> modifying an original M-ID is utter dubious, and it could cause >> complete confusion if a later (not the first) moderator starts to >> modify an already approved M-ID. > How? Could you provide some specific examples of what interoperability > problems you believe could result? The first moderator could note approved Message-IDs and cancel anything else appearing in his group. > cancels of a message in a moderated group have to be approved by the > moderator anyway, s/anyway/ideally/. Cancels can be approved by the author as well, they don't need to be moderated. Some cases I have in mind: 1 - author submits article, moderator approves it, author decides to withdraw his contribution. The author can send a cancel to the moderator (for approval by the moderator), additionally (s)he can send a self-approved (author's address) cancel. For cancels the most important issue is speed. 2 - impostor submits article, moderator approves it, alleged author cancels the fake. Somebody abused the From:-address and/or Message-ID, therefore cancel it. > The only interoperability problem that I can think of is if one of the > earlier moderators or the poster made a digital signature that included > the message ID, in which case changing it would invalidate the signature. Yes, that's a more elaborated version of "note approved Message-IDs". >> E.g. "drop" isn't a valid implementation of "reject". > It *has* to be. My moderated groups get hundreds of messages a day for > which drop is the *only* valid implementation of reject. Those messages > are spam with either no contact information at all or forged contact > information. Any attempt on my part to do anything but drop those > messages would leave me sending unsolicited e-mail or other communication > to someone whose only involvement with the original message was to have > their contact information forged by a spammer. That procedure has to be outlined in the standard. You can't just drop legit submissions without informing the author. It has to be clear what the Return-Path is (= an address at the original server), and that you'd use the From (or Reply-To) for a "normal" reject. For a "spam" reject you could use the Return-Path, informing the server admin that one of their users is a spammer or zombie. They could then decide to close this account. If even the Return-Path isn't plausible (no address you've heard of before, no SPF PASS, the works) you're forced to drop it, but you'll get false positives with this approach. > determining when this should be done versus dropping spam silently is > a judgement call not amenable to protocol language. I would be very > happy to see a document that describes those judgement calls, and > indeed such a document was already written, as an I-D, a little over > ten years ago. You can find it on the web as > "NetNews Moderator's Handbook." http://www.eff.org/Net_culture/Net_info/Technical/usenet_moderator_handbook.draft Ten years might be a bit old for issues related to spam. > If we try to get into that material in the protocol specification, > we're going to end up wandering *way* off into the weeds. You could write "the procedure to do X or decide Y is not specified here", but we need an overall model of what a moderated newsgroup is. So far I thought it's an NG where "something" can decide to reject or accept submitted articles. Apparently your model includes content modification and silently dropping articles. That's very different. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBUEwPGY044560; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:58:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBUEwPBb044559; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:58:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBUEwNkZ044553 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:58:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H0ff7-0000Y2-Np for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:58:17 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.71 ([212.82.251.71]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:58:17 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.71 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:58:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Control message propagation Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:54:01 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 41 Message-ID: <45967D89.61C9@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87odpmil35.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.71 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > Exceptionally, control messages creating or removing newsgroups > (newgroup or rmgroup control messages, for example) Ignoring "mvgroup" the example is a complete enumeration, isn't it ? The rest of the text doesn't make sense for a "checkgroups". Maybe remove the parentheses. > Group control messages affecting specific groups (newgroup and > rmgroup control messages, for example) Same here, a "checkgroups" listing _all_ newsgroups in the Newsgroups header field would be odd. Get rid of "for example", the qualifier is confusing without "mvgroup". ########################################################################## > the following under cancel control messages: > A cancel control message SHOULD have the same Newsgroups header field > as the message it is cancelling so that it will attempt to reach the > same news servers as the original message. > and the following in Security Considerations: > Cancel control messages are not required to have the same Newsgroups > header field as the messages they are cancelling and, since they are > sometimes processed before the original message is received, it may > not be possible to check that they do. This allows a malicious > poster to inject a cancel control message for an article in a > moderated newsgroup without adding an Approved header field to the > control message, and to hide malicious cancel control messages from > some reading agents by using a different Newsgroups header field so > that the cancel control message is not accepted by all news servers > that accepted the original message. So far it's clear. Is that good enough for a MUST instead of a SHOULD ? Or an explicit OPTION to ignore cancels violating the SHOULD ? Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBUESgYV043302; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:28:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBUESgGc043301; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:28:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBUESetY043294 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:28:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H0fCK-0005jM-5b for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:28:32 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.71 ([212.82.251.71]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:28:32 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.71 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:28:32 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: More Path notes Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:27:41 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 18 Message-ID: <4596775D.1813@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87sleyh06a.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.71 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > FQDN is used without further qualification in USEFOR as well [...] > maybe there's a definition somewhere else we can just reference? Check out RFC 3696 chapter 2. It doesn't discuss DNS details, but I don't think we need that for USEPRO. > Some existing implementations treat <path-identity> as case- > sensitive, some case-insensitive. The <path-identity> therefore > SHOULD be all lowercase and implementations SHOULD compare > identities case-insensitively. Messy. No chance for s/SHOULD/MUST/ ? Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBU222GL091329; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:02:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBU222JD091328; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:02:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBU220ec091320 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:02:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F8584C17C for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:02:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006894C2BA for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:02:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D76D7E7C7E; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:01:59 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Injection-Date and reinjection In-Reply-To: <JAA8qq.13v@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:23:14 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87bqm7v68q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAA8qq.13v@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:01:59 -0800 Message-ID: <87fyayf8fc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> I'm not sure the most effective way to respond to this analysis. I disagree with many points of Charles's message in one way or another, and I'm afraid that trying to discuss it line-by-line will just result in a muddle that will be confusing and too hard to follow. I think there are multiple differences of philosophy, definitions, analysis, and use cases here. So, what I'm going to try is to write up a description of how I see reinjection in general and the issues that we need to deal with (and *not* deal with) here as a coherent document. Then, hopefully, we can have a working group discussion comparing and contrasting my view of this with the one Charles presented and find some solution that takes into account all the concerns. First, one issue that's *not* directly part of this. Even if we keep the current USEPRO method, we need to have a staleness check on the Date header field at injection. We can't make a single leap to allowing stale Date header fields from not having any Injection-Date header field since most existing software is going to ignore the Injection-Date header field entirely and impose staleness checks on Date after injection. Therefore, an article with a stale Date is going to propagate very poorly, and accepting such an article just to let it be dropped silently later by most of the Netnews network would be a poor interoperability choice. Far better to reject the message at the injection point and make the user replace the Date header field. We can lower the requirement to SHOULD from MUST because of Injection-Date, but not drop it entirely. Now, let's look at the conditions under which this situation arises. First, note that multiple injection (sending the same proto-article to multiple injecting agents) is explicitly allowed for and described in our drafts. This is the best way to deal with most issues that would otherwise give rise to reinjection. For example, most small home servers are better implemented by proxying local posts to (potentially multiple) injecting agents rather than injecting the article into one's own local Netnews server and then gatewaying it later. A server that has ineffective relaying relationships and more effective posting access can inject posts both locally and at remote servers simultaneously and the result would be much cleaner. In other words, in general, confusing injecting and relaying or using them as interchangeable substitutes for each other is a bug. They do different things and confusing and strange things can happen when they're not kept distinct. Declaring such behavior non-comformant is a feature. The INN code to permit people to inject posts via IHAVE is something I committed only under protest, and I'm entirely content to have its behavior declared non-comformant by a standard. It is a *very* specialized configuration for strange cases where the people involved know just what they're doing. That being said, there are disjoint Netnews networks that people want to connect, and multiple injection or proxying injection isn't always the best approach (for one, it requires a real-time connection with the remote injecting agent). My definition of two disjoint Netnews networks is two Netnews networks between which there is no relaying agent to relaying agent connection. Significant examples are: * The many people who do not have any relaying agreement with a large Netnews network such as Usenet, only a reading agent relationship, but still want the features of a full-fledged news server (longer article retention, multiple users sharing the same spool, faster service to reading agents, local newsgroups without requiring clients use multiple servers, off-line operation). This has become increasingly common over the last five years for both personal and small organization use. * Ad hoc connections to a stand-alone news server that serves only a particular hierarchy. Relaying is always better for setting up clean connections between news servers with the same hierarchy, but sometimes people don't want to be bothered to set up a relaying connection or (more ethically questionably) people decide they want to propagate in a larger Netnews network (like Usenet) groups that the providers don't want to propagate. * Broken software that only supports relaying and not injecting but which can't be trusted with a true relaying agreement. This is the case that sparked the IHAVE support in nnrpd. The goal is to handle these cases with a solution that has the following properties: * Netnews loop detection and prevention is preserved. * Articles are stamped with trustworthy injection information. Since, particularly in the first and third cases, the reason why no relaying agreement is in place is precisely because the original injection information can't be trusted, this requires replacing injection information when the message is gated from one Netnews network to another. * The protocol is clear about who does what and who is responsible for what in these situations. * This edge case does not unnecessarily complicate the regular protocol. In particular, I want to avoid making agents do complex things to allow for possible reinjection when reinjection is a rare case that most agents don't have to be concerned with. My realization when reviewing the draft was that all or nearly all of the cases where this arises and is not simply a bug (such as treating relaying and injecting as interchangeable) can be meaningfully treated as disjoint Netnews networks. The case which Charles raises of a news server that acts as a relaying agent to one server and a posting agent to another server on the same network is an interesting possible exception; it's rather pathological, but I can see the argument that the end results, if done properly, are not distinguishable from multiple injection. But let's put that aside for a moment and look at the alternatives before us in the more typical case. Option 1 (my current draft) Proto-articles may not contain Injection-Date. Injecting agents must reject any message that contains Injection-Date. If an agent needs to reinject a message, it must think of itself as a gateway, remove the injection header fields (including Injection-Date), perform whatever checks it needs to ensure that it's not creating a loop, and then reinject the message, at which point it gets a new Injection-Date header field with the current date. This gateway is fully responsible for not creating loops. Option 2 (current USEPRO draft) For a given post, an injecting agent may either be doing injection or reinjection based on whether injection headers fields are already present. It may decline to do reinjection. If it doesn't, it may rename an existing Injection-Info header to some other name or remove it and must retain any existing Injection-Date header field. It may perform a staleness check against the Date header field if no Injection-Date header field is present. (The current USEPRO draft doesn't say an injecting agent can perform staleness checks against an existing Injection-Date header, but I presume that's simply an oversight.) The injecting agent is responsible for not creating loops, not the agent that offers the article for reinjection. I've already talked about why I think the first option is cleaner and clearer from a protocol description and implementation standpoint. Let me instead focus on failure modes. The primary risk of the first option is that it could create a slow loop in the presence of bidirectional gatewaying as follows: An article exists in network A. It is pulled by a reading agent and reinjected into network B by a gateway which removes the Injection-Date header field. Later, another gateway reads the article from network B and reinjects it into network A, removing the Injection-Date header field again. In order for this to occur, enough time will have to have passed between the reading of the article from network A and the injection back into network A for the record of the article to have expired, the two gateways would (contrary to the SHOULD in 3.9) have to have no effective checks against circular gatewaying, and the Injection-Date header must at each point still be fresh enough not to trigger any staleness restrictions in either gateway. Note that this loop cannot at this point continue unless one or the other gateway also violates the MUST NOT in 3.9.2 against gatewaying the same message twice; it stops with one duplicate. (And, currently, the injecting agent for A would have to not do a staleness check on the preserved Date header, contrary to a SHOULD, but we're hoping to eliminate that SHOULD eventually.) The second option does not have this same failure mode, and indeed it opens the door to fewer additional problems as long as we still have to enforce fresh Date header fields. The failure mode with the second option comes when we want to drop the staleness check on a Date header field. Suppose that a stand-alone news server B wants to pull articles from a Netnews network A for local consumption. B has a power failure and is off-line for an extended period of time (a week, say). When it comes back up, it wants to catch up on all of the news from A that it missed while it was down. Now, as long as we have to enforce Date staleness, it can only do this by ignoring a SHOULD at reinjection, since those articles will likely now have stale Dates, but it can be configured to do that. However, under option 2, catching up on gatewaying has now become impossible because it is REQUIRED to retain the Injection-Date header of the original message but that Injection-Date header is now stale and will therefore be rejected by any relaying or serving agent in B. Hence, option 2 makes impossible during reinjection a scenario similar to why we invented Injection-Date in the first place. Now, my basic argument, apart from the simplicity of option 1, is that the failure scenario for option 2 is worse than the failure scenario for option 1. I don't consider either to be particularly significant, but option 2 does fail in a situation that I consider very plausible (if unusual). The circumstances for option 1's failure, on the other hand, are not particularly plausible: the rarer case of bidirectional gatewaying has to be in effect, we have to already be losing due to lack of protection from circular gatewaying, *and* this whole thing has to happen in slow motion. In any normal circumstances, these gateways are going to fire within minutes, hours at most, and when the reinjection to A is attempted, a record of the article will still be present and the article will be rejected as a duplicate. Okay, phew. Now back to Charles's case. Suppose we have a new server with a relaying agreement to another unreliable news server and a posting agreement with a much more reliable news server, and that news server wants to send outgoing articles via both paths. Under option 2, the injecting agent that this server talks to must support reinjection (it's an optional feature in the current USEPRO draft), must enable it for that client, and then takes responsibility for doing the appropriate transformation, but Injection-Date is retained. Under option 1, this news server must either support multiple injection (far and away the best option) and inject at the remote server at the same time as the message is injected locally, or it must both relay the message and gateway it to the remote injecting agent. The gatewaying is more complex, but can be done entirely locally and the article will then look to the remote server like a regular proto-article. No special support on the remote server is therefore required; all of the work is born by the agent doing something unusual. In either case, two slightly different copies of the message will exist with different trace headers, but this is acceptable; the same is true for multiple injection. I would argue that option 1 is still better for this case. It's slightly more work, but it puts the work in the right place and the burden is born by the agent wanting to do the unusual work. Furthermore, it's more likely in practice that option 1 will be *possible*; if the remote injecting agent isn't willing to set up a relaying agreement with this news server, it seems unlikely to me that it would be willing to set up an even more rare reinjection agreement. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBU04klo084430; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:04:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBU04kKN084429; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:04:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (netblock-68-183-106-173.brandx.net [68.183.106.173] (may be forged)) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBU04csW084421 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:04:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MBAYUX42OG005N3E@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:04:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1167437068; h=Date: From:Subject:MIME-version:Content-type; b=BzhVvUT8ZzEuTE9HLpLQUR9HZ IK89oxrTeExizL/lIem3uOFc5BeZIc8dk4Qc6NCNv9rScV87Ci93Pab7rppaw== Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MB1DWFZ65C00005H@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:04:27 -0800 (PST) Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org Message-id: <01MBAYUVUPKU00005H@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:54:05 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: Scope of application/* media types (was: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:03:02 -0800" <877iwagy21.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> <877iwagy21.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> > > > I can't think of an example of how application/news-groupinfo could be > > > dangerous. It's nothing but a bit of text giving a newsgroup name and a > > > description. In and of itself, it has no force, power, or action > > > whatsoever. > > Application types are intended to cause applications to be invoked, with > > possible side effects. > Could you provide a reference for this? I don't see this statement in RFC > 2046. That's likely because the invokation of applications is an implementation artefact rather than a core feature of MIME. In particular, some (but by no means all) handle different media types through an application dispatch mechanism. RFC 1343 even defines a specific format to use for such information - the so-called mailcap format. This is, however, an informational RFC, not a standard, and not only is there no requirement that such a mechanism be used, lots of implementations don't work this way. > The closest that it has is: > The "application" media type is to be used for discrete data which do > not fit in any of the other categories, and particularly for data to > be processed by some type of application program. This is > information which must be processed by an application before it is > viewable or usable by a user. > "To be processed" is far from saying that reception of an application type > will cause an application to be invoked. application/octet-stream is an > obvious counter-example to this interpretation. Right. Furthermore, there's nothing that says video, image, audio, message or model types are exempt from processing and the generation of side effects. For that matter, it may be reasonable in some cases to handle text types by dispatching to an external application, e.g., in a voice mail system. > Our case falls into the general scope ("discrete data which do not fit in > any of the other categories") but not fully into the specific one ("data > to be processed by some type of application program"). Our media types > are actually text/* types; the only reason why they're not declared as > such is because text/* comes with baggage involving CTEs that we can't > accept. Declaring them as application/* is in essence a hack around the > MIME object structure, although unfortunately a necessary one. Yes, and while there have been various proposals to define an additional top-level type or types to deal with the baggage associated with text, none of them have received much support so far. Ned Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTMK7ua077856; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:20:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTMK7a9077855; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:20:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTMK6KB077849 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:20:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4048C4C1E7 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:20:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D59E4BE18 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:20:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 16FD8E7C46; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:20:06 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: application/news-groupinfo in newgroup (was: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00) In-Reply-To: <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:04:53 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:20:06 -0800 Message-ID: <87y7oqfip5.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >>> 31. [-1] (5.2.1) Newgroup message SHOULD include application/group-info. >>> Was MUST ... >> Intentional change. >> Newsgroup descriptions are optional in the protocol and newgroup >> messages without descriptions work fine with existing software. > OK, if absence means that it just creates a Newsgroups file entry with > just the name of the newsgroup, and maybe the TAB, and certainly the > " (Moderated)" if needed. Its absence may mean that no newsgroups file entry is created at all. The newsgroups file is an optional feature of NNTP and need not be implemented, nor need the newsgroups file be accurate or complete. See section 7.6.6 of RFC 3977: The list MAY omit newsgroups for which the information is unavailable and MAY include groups not available on the server. The client MUST NOT assume that the list is complete or that it matches the list returned by LIST ACTIVE. Newsgroups are not required to have descriptions unless you want to send a checkgroups for them. Some Netnews networks (such as the servers on which microsoft.* is hosted) simply don't use them. > Likewise for checkgroups. I don't see what change you are indicating for checkgroups. The body of a checkgroups message can't meaningfully be empty. > So you need something like: > The application/group-info MUST be included if the group is moderated, > in which case it MUST include a <moderation-flag>. For other groups, it > MAY be omitted if there is no <newsgroup-description> to be provided. Why do we need something like that? There's a perfectly usable moderation flag in the Control header field. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTME2kx077609; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:14:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTME2uT077608; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:14:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTME10q077600 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:14:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 495B24C0CB for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:14:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C48D4BE07 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:14:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 00A36E7C46; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:14:00 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Approved header field content (was: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00) In-Reply-To: <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:04:53 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:14:00 -0800 Message-ID: <873b6ygxjr.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >>> 30. [-1] (5.2) Nothing said about content of Approved header. >>> Surely, it SHOULD identify the person/identity/role of the issuer, ... >> Intentional change. >> The content of the Approved header serves no protocol purpose, and >> USEFOR already adequately covers the definition of its content. >> Control message authorization is done on the basis of the Sender or >> From header (preferrably in combination with a digital signature). > It asserts that this is an "authorized" message (just what "authorized" > means is a separate issue which I shall raise later). The description in USEFOR is: The Approved header field indicates the mailing addresses (and possibly the full names) of the persons or entities approving the article for posting. Its principal uses are in moderated articles and in group control messages; see [I-D.ietf-usefor-usepro]. The Netnews protocol currently does not deal with authorization at all (an obvious flaw noted in Security Considerations). Any authorization information you want to use has to be derived from the underlying transport protocol or from unstandardized extensions such as digital signatures. > As such, it is pretty pointless unless it identifies the entity that is > authorized, and all news servers that I know of can be configured with > the identity that is to be recognized for each hierarchy. If you're referring to group control mesages, said identity is checked against the *From or Sender* header field, not the Approved header, at least in INN. INN ignores the contents of the Approved header. I don't know if C News uses the contents of the Approved header field for control message permissions, but my impression from having maintained control.ctl for some years is that most everyone uses From/Sender. > Of course, it really needs to be digitally signed to make it effective, > but that again is a separate issue. > I think the WG early on took the view that the Approved header would > simply fall into disrepute if one could always get away with > Approved: kibo > and that it therefore needed some firmer language (digitally signed in due > course). I remain of that view. We can add firmer language when there's some meaning to the contents, such as when digital signatures are added. Right now, placing any stricter requirements would contradict existing practice and be pointless since there's no possible protocol check on the contents of Approved. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTM34en076765; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:03:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTM34Nr076764; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:03:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTM33P2076758 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:03:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DA1B94CC0A for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:03:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E884C936 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:03:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AEEA1E7C46; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:03:02 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Scope of application/* media types (was: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00) In-Reply-To: <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:04:53 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:03:02 -0800 Message-ID: <877iwagy21.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >>> 26. [-1] (4.2,4.3) Removed requirement that >>> application/news-[groupinfo,checkgroups] MUST NOT be used except with >>> relevant control messages. >>> Application types are inherently dangerous ... >> Intentional change. >> I can't think of an example of how application/news-groupinfo could be >> dangerous. It's nothing but a bit of text giving a newsgroup name and a >> description. In and of itself, it has no force, power, or action >> whatsoever. > Application types are intended to cause applications to be invoked, with > possible side effects. Could you provide a reference for this? I don't see this statement in RFC 2046. The closest that it has is: The "application" media type is to be used for discrete data which do not fit in any of the other categories, and particularly for data to be processed by some type of application program. This is information which must be processed by an application before it is viewable or usable by a user. "To be processed" is far from saying that reception of an application type will cause an application to be invoked. application/octet-stream is an obvious counter-example to this interpretation. Our case falls into the general scope ("discrete data which do not fit in any of the other categories") but not fully into the specific one ("data to be processed by some type of application program"). Our media types are actually text/* types; the only reason why they're not declared as such is because text/* comes with baggage involving CTEs that we can't accept. Declaring them as application/* is in essence a hack around the MIME object structure, although unfortunately a necessary one. > In this case, the side efect is that a line gets added/changed in the > Newsgroups file. I don't agree with this interpretation, and I don't see anything in the text of the application/news-groupinfo registration that reflects this. It sounds to me like you're confusing the newgroup control message with the application/news-groupinfo MIME media type. They're not the same thing. > OK, in that case what you need to say is: > This media type is intended to be used in conjunction with the > newgroup control message as described in section 5.2.1. It MUST NOT be > automatically invoked in any other context without explicit human > intervention. > and similarly for checkgroups. I disagree with adding anything like this to our document. When we just defined the media type to contain simple text and nothing in the description of the media type says anything about treating that text as instructions to a computer program, this seems to me to just be confusing. There's nothing here to invoke; it's just an association between newsgroup names and descriptions. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTLpGJF076044; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:51:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTLpGZB076043; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:51:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTLpFQt076037 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:51:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 641204C913 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:51:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B084C0AE for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:51:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 429BCE7C46; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:51:15 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Serving agents and duplicates (was: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00) In-Reply-To: <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:04:53 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:51:15 -0800 Message-ID: <87bqlmgylo.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >>> 21. [-1] (3.6) No mention of processing cancel messages by >>> serving/storage agents. >> The same language is here as for relaying agents, but you may have missed >> it because it's combined with another similar point: >> 3. It SHOULD reject any article that has already been successfully >> sent to it or that matches an already-received and honored cancel >> message or Supersedes header field following the same rules as a >> relaying agent (Section 3.5). > OK, point taken, but it might be better split out. Moreover, the first > bit corresponds to step 2 of relaying which is a MUST, as is the matter > of stale articles (which is also a history file matter). Good point. So much for trying to save a bit of length. :) I now have: 3. It MUST reject any article that has already been successfully sent to it, based on the Message-ID header field of the article. To satisfy this requirement, a relaying agent normally keeps a database of message identifiers it has already accepted. 4. It SHOULD reject any article that matches an already-received and honored cancel message or Supersedes header field following the same rules as a relaying agent (Section 3.5). which is basically the same text as for relaying agents. > OK, but people will think it odd that you mention the obscure case of > cancels which arise first here, but make to mention of the common case. > Perhaps an extra step to say that it SHOULD then process any control > messages (including cancels) in acccordance with section 5. This would need to be added to relaying agents as well. I don't feel like it's really necessary, but I don't object if others in the WG would like it to be added. (I think that's MAY, not SHOULD; many news servers don't process control messages at all and unless they want to honor cancels, there's no need for them to do so. There are numerous other ways to maintain an active newsgroup list.) -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTLgRiF075140; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:42:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTLgRch075139; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:42:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTLgQVM075133 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:42:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 911844C37E for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:42:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECC54C7B5 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:42:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 39C7CE7C46; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:42:26 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Xref and relaying agents (was: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00) In-Reply-To: <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:04:53 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:42:26 -0800 Message-ID: <87fyaygz0d.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >>> 20. [00] (3.5) Relaying agent MAY add a new Xref header. >>> Why might it want to do that? >> Intentional change. >> Because the same piece of software also implements a serving agent, >> which has to add the Xref header, and the same code path is used for >> all articles received by the server whether they are for further >> relaying or local serving. > Well if that is the case it was nominally the serving function that > added the Xref (section 3.6). No, because changes made by serving agents would only be seen by posting agents. Serving agents do not sent messages to any other news server. Only relaying agents do that. > Now whether such an agent first stores the article and then relays what > it has stored, or whether it relays first and then stores after is none > of our business. Our agent description describes the flow, and doesn't allow for this, conceptually. This is true even in the current USEPRO draft. An "injecting agent" takes the finished article from the posting agent (often via the NNTP "POST" command), performs some final checks and passes it on to a "relaying agent" for general distribution. A "relaying agent" is software which receives allegedly compliant articles from injecting agents and/or other relaying agents, and possibly passes copies on to other relaying agents and "storage agents". A "storage agent" receives an article from a relaying agent and files it in a "news database". It also provides an interface for reading agents to access the news database. The progression of an article is: posting -> injecting -> 1* relaying -> serving -> reading Articles do not go to serving agents and then back to relaying agents. This is, admittedly, the only place where it really matters from a protocol standpoint, but it affects the wording in subtle ways in various other places and I'd rather keep the clarity. Because of this, the protocol description has to say that the relaying agent may add an Xref header, since otherwise nothing in the protocol permits the Xref header to appear in the article until it reaches a serving agent. Few news implementations have a true serving agent as defined in our document. INN, for example, splits that function between innd and nnrpd. Diablo is the only implementation I'm familiar with that has a pure serving agent as a separate service, although I think the Highwind commercial servers may also have an equivalent. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTLVJTZ074751; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:31:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTLVJDP074750; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:31:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTLVIG2074744 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:31:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1EC454CC97 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:31:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AEC54CC40 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:31:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 03C98E7C46; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:31:18 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Moderation fowarding wording for injecting agents (was: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00) In-Reply-To: <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:04:53 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:31:17 -0800 Message-ID: <87k60agziy.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> This section says more than just that, and I think the change makes >> more sense with more context: >> 7. If the Newsgroups header contains one or more moderated groups >> and the proto-article does not contain an Approved header field, >> the injecting agent SHOULD forward it to a moderator as >> specified in Section 3.4.1. If the article cannot be forwarded >> to a moderator for some reason, it MUST be rejected. > OK, the wording could be better. How about: > 7. If the Newsgroups header contains one or more moderated groups and > the proto-article does not contain an Approved header field, the > injecting agent MUST either forward it to a moderator as specified > in Section 3.4.1 or, if that is not possible, reject it. Yup, that looks better to me as well and it's even shorter. Changed in my version. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTLRbvn074527; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:27:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTLRbMD074526; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:27:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTLRaNm074519 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:27:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 947FC4C747 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:27:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768714C6E8 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:27:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 69C39E7C46; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:27:36 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Injecting agents and From (was: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00) In-Reply-To: <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:04:53 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:27:36 -0800 Message-ID: <87odpmgzp3.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >>> 3. [-1] (3.3.1,3.4,3.9.2) From not omittable in proto-article >>> There is existing usage where the injecting agent fills in From header >>> (not possible in NNTP, of course) >> Intentional change. >> What injecting agent supports this? > INN apparently (see below). > Newsreaders such as rn, trn, nn, and others of that generation had (and > still have) the capability to interact directly with the newspool > (either on the same host, or more likely NFS mounted from some server) > rather than going via NNTP (which did not exist when they were first > written). They injected articles by calling a program 'inews' which, in > the absence of an explicit From:, assumed the poster was the user who > had called 'inews'. inews as distributed with INN or the common news readers is a (part of a) posting agent, not an injecting agent. You can see this by observing what actions it takes and what agent it talks to. It sends messages to an injecting agent via POST and expects that agent to do the injection; it doesn't perform those actions itself and then send messages directly to relaying and serving agents the way that an injecting agent does. Our agent distinctions are largely based on how INN and similar news servers work. C News, being a much earlier implementation, may not have the same distinctions, or they may be much less clear. Some implementations written prior to our standard will combine different agents into one program, so it's possible that in C News inews combines functions of a posting agent and an injecting agent. However, I believe you'll find that treating creation of the From header field as a function of the posting agent, which is possibly combined with an injecting agent, will work correctly and not contradict the work flow of any existing implementation. INN's inews used to redundantly perform a few (although not all by any means) of the functions of an injecting agent, such as mailing posts to the moderators of moderated newsgroups. This behavior was a bad idea, causing various problems in practice, and has been removed from current versions. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTLHIa6073461; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:17:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTLHIeS073460; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:17:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTLHHli073454 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:17:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C38774BF47 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:17:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95BED4BE2E for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:17:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8AC38E7C46; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:17:17 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: More Path notes (was: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00) In-Reply-To: <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:04:53 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:17:17 -0800 Message-ID: <87sleyh06a.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> I'm going to start trying to break this message up into separate subjects per topic. I'll also try to only respond to places where there seems to be more to say or some text change that's needed. Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >>> 1. [-1] (2.2) <path-identity> - Possibility to use a FQDN not >>> resolvable in the DNS. >>> (This was a suggestion by Harald, & 1 of 2 alternatives in USEPRO) >> Intentional, but I don't object to changing it. Actually, I didn't make this change, but both of us misread my text. :) This case is still allowed (it's my 2nd point). What changed was the wording of the 1st point. >> The intentional change here is that I added a different preferred first >> option, namely the FQDN of the news server itself. > Which I did not quite understand. Did you mean the A or AAAA record? In > which case please be explicit. But I would prefer to allow CNAMEs and > MXes as well. Those are both allowed by the second option. FQDN is used without further qualification in USEFOR as well (section 3.2.8). I think it's a technical term that readers of standards should be expected to know and don't think it needs further elaboration. If it does, USEFOR also needs to be modified. One of the reasons why I'd rather leave it as-is is that it's one of those terms where attempting a formal definition can quickly get off into the weeds dealing with multihomed hosts, different DNS RRs, and so forth. But I can see why not clearly defining a term in a standard could be a problem, so I can be convinced we need to say something. (Ideally, maybe there's a definition somewhere else we can just reference?) >>> 2. [00] (3.2) <path-identity>s are case-sensitive. >>> I was always told that some servers treated them one way and some the >>> other, so you could not rely on either. If anything, I would have >>> expected case-insensitive (that is what domain-names are, and what >>> USEFOR declares <diag-keyword>s are). >> Intentional change. >> Declaring them case-sensitive is the conservative choice. If you treat >> them as case-sensitive and they're actually compared >> case-insensitively, everything works fine. The opposite is not true; >> if your Path identity varies in case, servers that compare >> case-sensitively may add incorrect MISMATCH entries or send you >> articles that you sent them. > OK, I will buy that. The more I research this, though, the more I think that while the above is true, it's not ideal. Poking around a bit, it looks like a *lot* of existing implementations are case-insensitive, and I'm not sure I want to declare that incorrect. Accordingly, I now have the following text, which I think is an improvement. Please, everyone, let me know if you disagree: Some existing implementations treat <path-identity> as case- sensitive, some case-insensitive. The <path-identity> therefore SHOULD be all lowercase and implementations SHOULD compare identities case-insensitively. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTKjWD3071093; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:45:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTKjWJB071092; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:45:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTKjTit071085 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:45:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 146224CC26 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:45:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89274CC06 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:45:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D3976E7C46; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:45:28 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Moderator duties Organization: The Eyrie Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:45:28 -0800 Message-ID: <871wmiig7r.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> I went over the text in Duties of a Moderator about what a moderator is allowed to do and came up with the following rewording. Do folks feel that this is an improvement? Does this address some of the concerns with the previous language? There are no protocol restrictions on what criteria are used for accepting or rejecting messages or on what modifications a moderator may make to a message (both header fields and body) before injecting it. Recommended best practice, however, is to make the minimal required changes. Moderators need to be aware that modifications made to articles may invalidate signatures created by the poster or previous moderators. See [USEAGE] for further best-practice recommendations. Moderators process articles as follows: 1. They decide whether to approve or reject a proto-article, and if approved, prepare the proto-article for injection. If the proto- article was received as an unencapsulated email message, this will require converting it back to a valid Netnews proto-article. If the article is rejected, it is normally rejected for all newsgroups to which it was posted and nothing further is done. If it is approved, the moderator proceeds with the following steps. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTKXH6T068653; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:33:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTKXHnP068652; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:33:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTKXHpp068645 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:33:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E92174C984 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:33:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D614C978 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:33:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D0602E7C46; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:33:16 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata In-Reply-To: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message of "Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:50:27 -0800") Organization: The Eyrie References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:33:16 -0800 Message-ID: <877iwaigs3.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > As a summary from the recent long threads, here are the changes I > believe should be made to draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 if we go > forward with that document. The first one below has not previously been > discussed on the list. These errata have now been applied to my working copy. Where the text was substantial or I felt it was possibly controversial, I sent the new text to the list; for the rest of these errata, I made the obvious changes. > * USEFOR was changed (correctly, IMO) to allow only WSP between the > arguments of control commands, not FWS. I caught this for newgroup and > rmgroup but missed it for checkgroups and cancel, both of which need > FWS to WSP changes. > * multipart/related in newgroup control messages should be > multipart/mixed instead. > * application/news-transmission should explicitly note that, contrary to > the previous registration, batches are not permitted. > * The trimming requirement for References should probably go back to > MUST. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTKW1No068340; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:32:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTKW1il068339; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:32:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTKW01f068330 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:32:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4FB944C98D for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:32:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D81C4C97B for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:32:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 089F8E7A6D; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:32:00 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Path header field (was: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata) In-Reply-To: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message of "Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:50:27 -0800") Organization: The Eyrie References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:31:59 -0800 Message-ID: <87bqlmigu8.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > * A separate sub-section of duties, before the individual agent duties > and possibly as part of the same sub-section as the identity > discussion, should be added specifying Path header construction. The > Path header example should be moved to be a sub-section of that > section. That section can lay out all the construction requirements > for the Path header field and just be referred to by the individual > duties sections. > * The possibility of adding multiple path-identities should be > reintroduced as part of the rework of the Path description. > * Serving agents also are not required to modify the Path header field if > processing an article from a relaying agent or injecting agent that's > part of the same server. This can be handled more generally in the > redone Path section. As promised, here is the new section. I also made the corresponding updates to the other sections (removing the description and replacing it with a reference to this section) and moved the Path header field example. 3.2.1. Constructing the Path Header Field If a relaying or serving agent receives an article from an injecting or serving agent that is part of the same news server, it MAY leave the Path header field of the article unchanged. Otherwise, every injecting, relaying, or serving agent that accepts an article MUST update the Path header field as follows. Note that the Path header field content is constructed from right to left by prepending elements. 1. The agent MUST prepend "!" to the Path header field content. 2. An injecting agent SHOULD prepend the <path-diagnostic> "!.POSTED", optionally followed by "." and the FQDN or IP address of the source, to the Path header field content. 3. A relaying or serving agent SHOULD prepend a <path-diagnostic> to the Path header field content, where the <path-diagnostic> is chosen as follows: * If the expected <path-identity> of the source of the article matches the leftmost <path-identity> of the Path header field's content, use "!" (<diag-match>). * If the expected <path-identity> of the source of the article does not match, use "!.MISMATCH." followed by the expected <path-identity> of the source or its IP address. * If the relaying or serving agent is not willing or able to check the <path-identity>, use "!.SEEN." followed by the FQDN, IP address, or expected <path-identity> of the source. 4. The agent MUST then prepend its own <path-identity> to the Path header field content. 5. The agent MAY then prepend additional <path-identity>s for itself to the Path header field content, following each <path-identity> so added with either "!!" or "!". This is permitted for agents that have multiple <path-identity>s (such as during a transition from one to another). Each of these <path-identity>s MUST meet the requirements set out in Section 3.2. Any agent which modifies the Path header field MAY fold it by inserting FWS immediately after any <path-identity> or <diag-other> it added (see section 3.1.5 of [USEFOR] for allowable locations for FWS). > * (Still under discussion.) We may wish to reintroduce the possibility > of a path-identity that is not a resolvable name in DNS. This was already in my draft. I have: The <path-identity> used by an agent may be chosen via one of the following methods (in decreasing order of preference): 1. The fully-qualified domain name (FQDN) of the system on which the agent is running. 2. A fully-qualified domain name (FQDN) within a domain affiliated with the administrators of the agent and guaranteed to be unique by the administrators of that domain. For example, the uniqueness of server.example.org could be guaranteed by the administrator of example.org even if there is no DNS record for server.example.org itself. 3. Some other (arbitrary) name in the form <path-nodot> believed to be unique and registered at least with all the other news servers to which that relaying agent or injecting agent sends articles. This option SHOULD NOT be used unless the earlier options are unavailable or unless the name is of longstanding usage. This is the same as what's in the current USEPRO draft except that my 1. replaces: 1. A fully qualified domain name (FQDN) that SHOULD be resolvable in the DNS (whether via an A, AAAA or MX record or an equivalent CNAME), thus guaranteeing a unique identity. Ideally, it will also provide a means to contact the administrators by email (according to [RFC 2142], the forms "usenet@server" and "news@server" are common addresses for a news server administrator). or 1. A fully qualified domain name (FQDN) that can be resolved to an email server via an MX, A or AAAA record according to the procedures of [RFC 2821]; this guarantees that the name is unique, and makes it easy to contact the administrators if needed. The most common current practice is to use the FQDN of the news server, not a mail server, as a path identity. If one wants to use a mail server, 2. still allows for that; it doesn't require that the name *not* exist in DNS. In my original draft, I intentionally removed any protocol-required connection between a <path-identity> and a contact address. After lots of previous discussion of this point, I don't think the potential gains of discussing such a connection in this specification are worth the complexity and divergence from current practice. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTJaDMO064666; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:36:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTJaD8i064665; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:36:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTJaCUi064659 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:36:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id CCBA54C888 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:36:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11944C3C8 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:36:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AA395E7C2B; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:36:11 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: to.* newsgroups (was: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata) In-Reply-To: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message of "Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:50:27 -0800") Organization: The Eyrie References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:36:11 -0800 Message-ID: <87fyayijf8.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > * (Still under discussion.) We may wish to add a sentence about the > construction of newsgroups in the to.* hierarchy. I'm convinced. I now have: These control messages are normally sent as point-to-point articles between two sites and not then sent on to other sites. Newsgroups beginning with "to." are reserved for such point-to-point communications and are formed by prepending "to." to a <relayer-name> to form a <newsgroup-name>. Articles with such a group in their Newsgroups header fields SHOULD NOT be sent to any news server other than the one identified by <relayer-name>. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTJLsIt062972; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:21:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTJLs4v062971; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:21:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTJLqXZ062965 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:21:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E3FFF4C5E0 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:21:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0164C192 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:21:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D07B0E7C2B; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:21:49 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: ihave/sendme syntax (was: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata) In-Reply-To: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message of "Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:50:27 -0800") Organization: The Eyrie References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:21:49 -0800 Message-ID: <87k60aik36.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > * We need some resolution of the different conflicting syntaxes for ihave > and sendme control messages. Path of least resistance is probably to > revert to the current USEPRO tactic of two separate ABNFs. I've since reviewed RFC 1036 and Son-of-1036. The former makes the relayer name optional and requires that the message IDs be in the control header field. The latter makes the relayer name mandatory and RECOMMENDS that the message IDs be put in the body. I think the following is the most reasonable compromise; it makes the relayer-name mandatory if there are no message IDs (the form never allowed in RFC 1036 but according to Son-of-1036 the most widely used in practice), and if there are message IDs, permits the same syntax as RFC 1036. Let me know if anything looks wrong. ihave and sendme control messages share similar syntax for their Control header fields and bodies: control-command =/ Ihave-command Ihave-command = "ihave" Ihave-arguments Ihave-arguments = 1*WSP relayer-name / 1*( 1*WSP msg-id ) [ 1*WSP relayer-name ] control-command =/ Sendme-command Sendme-command = "sendme" Sendme-arguments Sendme-arguments = Ihave-arguments relayer-name = path-identity ; see 3.1.5 of [USEFOR] ihave-body = *( msg-id CRLF ) sendme-body = ihave-body The body of the article consists of a list of <msg-id>s, one per line. The message identifiers SHOULD be put in the body of the article, not in the Control header field, but news servers MAY recognize and process message identifiers in the Control header field for backward compatibility. Message identifiers MUST NOT be put in the Control header field if they are present in the body of the control message. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTJ0G7W060590; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:00:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTJ0GDO060589; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:00:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTJ0FGx060582 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:00:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D93F74C941 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:00:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7ACC4C929 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:00:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AE031E7C2B; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:00:14 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Control message propagation (was: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata) In-Reply-To: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message of "Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:50:27 -0800") Organization: The Eyrie References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:00:14 -0800 Message-ID: <87odpmil35.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > * The correct description of special routing for newgroup and rmgroup > control messages is something more like: > Exceptionally, control messages creating or removing newsgroups > (newgroup or rmgroup control messages, for example) SHOULD be relayed > if the affected group appears in its Newsgroups header field and the > sending agent would have supplied and the receiving agent would have > received the newsgroup affected by the control message had it > existed, even if it currently does not. > The current USEPRO text for construction of the Newsgroups header field > for those control messages should be restored (and probably as a > general statement about group control messages that affect only one > group rather than stated independently in both newgroup and rmgroup). I now have: Exceptionally, control messages creating or removing newsgroups (newgroup or rmgroup control messages, for example) SHOULD be relayed if the affected group appears in its Newsgroups header field and the sending agent would have supplied and the receiving agent would have received the newsgroup affected by the control message had it existed, even if it currently does not. for the propagation rule, the following under group control messages: Group control messages affecting specific groups (newgroup and rmgroup control messages, for example) SHOULD include the <newsgroup- name> for the group or groups affected in their Newsgroups header field. Other newsgroups MAY be included in the Newsgroups header field so that the control message will reach more news servers, but due to the special relaying rules for group control messages (see Section 3.5) this is normally unnecessary and may be excessive. the following under cancel control messages: A cancel control message SHOULD have the same Newsgroups header field as the message it is cancelling so that it will attempt to reach the same news servers as the original message. and the following in Security Considerations: Cancel control messages are not required to have the same Newsgroups header field as the messages they are cancelling and, since they are sometimes processed before the original message is received, it may not be possible to check that they do. This allows a malicious poster to inject a cancel control message for an article in a moderated newsgroup without adding an Approved header field to the control message, and to hide malicious cancel control messages from some reading agents by using a different Newsgroups header field so that the cancel control message is not accepted by all news servers that accepted the original message. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTISM19058384; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:28:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTISMqI058382; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:28:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTISLvw058375 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:28:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id BCE2F4C924 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:28:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E054C907 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:28:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8405DE7C2B; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:28:21 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 In-Reply-To: <45899A0C.2BEC@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:16:12 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <878xh38l9j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45899A0C.2BEC@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:28:21 -0800 Message-ID: <87y7oqimka.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> The situation only gets interesting when the poster themselves has >> provided the message ID, which is an entirely different case. > It's the interesting case - I don't care about any provisional M-ID used > for the communication between the server where the article was > submitted, and the moderator(s). If the first (and only the first) > moderator somehow identifies a provisional M-ID he's free to beautify > it. But modifying an original M-ID is utter dubious, and it could cause > complete confusion if a later (not the first) moderator starts to modify > an already approved M-ID. How? Could you provide some specific examples of what interoperability problems you believe could result? As previously mentioned, cancels are not an insolvable issue; cancels of a message in a moderated group have to be approved by the moderator anyway, at which point the correct message ID can be used. The only interoperability problem that I can think of is if one of the earlier moderators or the poster made a digital signature that included the message ID, in which case changing it would invalidate the signature. In the presence of digital signatures, many different changes, not just the message ID, are likely to invalidate the signature, and that will certainly have to be addressed in the specification of that signature protocol (perhaps by saying "don't change messages" for groups that want to use such signatures). But that seems outside the scope of this document provided that we say nothing that *conflicts*. (MAY change the message ID doesn't conflict; SHOULD would conflict.) > It's apparently a part of your philosophy that anything that happens to > proto articles isn't very interesting for the protocol, the show begins > when it's injected. No, not really. I consider moderation to be an important part of the protocol. However, what happens at the moderation stage is complex enough and involves enough human judgement that I don't believe much can be usefully said in a protocol specification, as opposed to a BCP. > For my different philosophy the show begins when a news server didn't > reject an article with some kind of error message. From my POV the > moderators are a part of the protocol - modbot or human alike. > E.g. "drop" isn't a valid implementation of "reject". It *has* to be. My moderated groups get hundreds of messages a day for which drop is the *only* valid implementation of reject. Those messages are spam with either no contact information at all or forged contact information. Any attempt on my part to do anything but drop those messages would leave me sending unsolicited e-mail or other communication to someone whose only involvement with the original message was to have their contact information forged by a spammer. Numerically, this is the common case. This case significantly outnumbers both approvals and human-notified rejects. Yes, I certainly agree that a human poster should be notified of a rejection of a message to a moderated group provided that they included some reasonable means for that notification to be sent, but determining when this should be done versus dropping spam silently is a judgement call not amenable to protocol language. I would be very happy to see a document that describes those judgement calls, and indeed such a document was already written, as an I-D, a little over ten years ago. You can find it on the web as "NetNews Moderator's Handbook." It would be great to polish and update that document and publish it as a BCP or Informational RFC, but there is a reason why it's over 45 pages long. If we try to get into that material in the protocol specification, we're going to end up wandering *way* off into the weeds. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTI64pl055963; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:06:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBTI64uJ055962; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:06:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBTI63Ip055956 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:06:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 440944C8B6 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:06:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8444C8C5 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1B403E7C2B; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:06:01 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: charset of application/news-{groupinfo,checkgroups} (was: Re: ASCII) In-Reply-To: <87ejqw4zgw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:21:35 -0800") Organization: The Eyrie References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAC0yG.5r2@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4583FEF1.49A1@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejqw4zgw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:06:01 -0800 Message-ID: <873b6yk25y.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: >> IMO it's obvious, but that future draft could say that using any >> charset that's not UTF-8, like Latin-1, is NOT RECOMMENDED if non-ASCII >> group names are affected. > Exactly. > Currently non-ASCII group names are banned entirely by USEFOR, so it > doesn't make much sense to say this now. > We could RECOMMEND use of either US-ASCII or UTF-8 for the charset in > the name of making future transitions easier, though. I can see some > merit in going that route, particularly since I think we're fairly > certain at this point that newsgroup names will either be UTF-8 or some > ASCII encoding. I don't see any other non-ASCII character set cropping > up in the IETF. While implementing this wording change, I realized that most of the problem is already handled by the ABNF for these media types. It already specifies specific octets for things such as HTAB and the allowable characters for a newsgroup name. Because of that, it looked to me like we could simplify this language considerably and use a sentence closer to what Charles suggested. The ABNF was restricting the newsgroup description to 7bit characters, so that also needed to be changed. Here's what I currently have: The content of the application/news-groupinfo body part is defined as: groupinfo-body = [ newsgroups-tag CRLF ] newsgroups-line CRLF newsgroups-tag = %x46.6F.72 SP %x79.6F.75.72 SP %x6E.65.77.73.67.72.6F.75.70.73 SP %x66.69.6C.65.3A ; case sensitive ; "For your newsgroups file:" newsgroups-line = newsgroup-name [ 1*HTAB newsgroup-description ] [ 1*WSP moderation-flag ] newsgroup-description = eightbit-utext *( *WSP eightbit-utext ) moderation-flag = %x28.4D.6F.64.65.72.61.74.65.64.29 ; case sensitive "(Moderated)" eightbit-utext = utext / %d127-255 This unusual format is backward-compatible with the scanning of the body of newgroup control messages for descriptions done by Netnews implementations that predate this specification. Although optional, the <newsgroups-tag> SHOULD be included for backward compatibility. The <newsgroup-description> MUST NOT contain any occurrence of the string "(Moderated)" within it. Moderated newsgroups MUST be marked by appending the case sensitive text " (Moderated)" at the end. While a charset parameter is defined for this media type, most existing software does not understand MIME header fields or correctly handle descriptions in a variety of charsets. Using a charset of US- ASCII where possible is therefore RECOMMENDED; if not possible, UTF-8 [RFC3629] SHOULD be used. Regardless of the charset used, the constraints of the above grammar MUST be met and the <newsgroup-name> MUST be represented using the same octets as would be used with a charset of US-ASCII. and under application/news-checkgroups: The same restrictions on charset, <newsgroup-name>, and <newsgroup- description> apply for this media type as for application/ news-groupinfo. Let me know if I'm missing a subtlety that would have been expressed by Harald's language. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBMHaDOH085994; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:36:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBMHaDYI085993; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:36:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBMHaCJM085987 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:36:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8EEB44C778 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:36:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 596634C750 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:36:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 501C3E7C9A; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:36:12 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Leaf node news servers and posting (Re: Message IDs and moderators) In-Reply-To: <87wt4k9z3e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message of "Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:19:49 -0800") Organization: The Eyrie References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612191114390.30210@shellvm.peak.org> <871wmvhcja.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAn2zJ.EGt@clerew.man.ac.uk> <65485825E312C10C07CCE44B@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <87wt4k9z3e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:36:12 -0800 Message-ID: <87ejqrzvcj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > In actual practice, they work the way that I describe them in my > document, namely as two independent networks and a gateway with all > gatewaying work done by the stand-alone server. Someone pointed out to me in private e-mail that there's another frequently used way of doing this which avoids most of the problems (including the need to do gatewaying), namely immediately proxying any POST to a remote server. Some of the end-point single-host news servers just keep track of where different groups go and, when receiving a POST, never store the article locally and instead immediately proxy the POST to the appropriate server. Then, when the article shows up on that server, the normal mechanism pulls it down to the local article store. This system is much more robust than having to do gatewaying in any fashion, but has the drawback that it can't function off-line and that it requires a specialized news server that knows to do unusual things with POST (as opposed to allowing one to plug a gateway into a generic all-purpose news server). If I remember correctly, leafnode works this way. This is really the best way to handle this, and avoids having to deal with the issues in either my draft or in the current USEPRO draft. There's no reinjection or gatewaying, just the proxying of the conversation between the posting agent and the injecting agent. It just has a few drawbacks that makes something like INN + suck better in a few situations, mostly ones where you want to maintain a set of local newsgroups in addition to gating newsgroups from another Netnews network. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBMHC6vF083293; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:12:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBMHC6a7083292; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:12:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBMHC5lG083283 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:12:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3*clerew^man*ac$uk) by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 458c11e3.170eb.fe for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:12:03 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBMHC3hF020263 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:12:03 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBMHC2nS020259 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:12:02 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23944 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Leaf node news servers and posting (Re: Message IDs and moderators) Message-ID: <JAoLxL.AwI@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612191114390.30210@shellvm.peak.org> <871wmvhcja.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAn2zJ.EGt@clerew.man.ac.uk> <65485825E312C10C07CCE44B@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:34:33 GMT Lines: 66 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <65485825E312C10C07CCE44B@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes: >--On torsdag, desember 21, 2006 19:47:43 +0000 Charles Lindsey ><chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote: >> So he posts articles which appear at first in his local serving agent, and >> then get sent to his ISP's news spool. His ISP will expect him to use >> POST, and will add an Injection-Info, with complaints directed to the >> abuse dept. OK so far, and the guy will have to arrange things are done as >> his ISP requests. And, Shock Horror! maybe it even has an Xref when the >> ISP gets it. >can someone who actually runs one of those beasts explain how they handle >posting of articles - in particular, whether they really make an article >available to their local serving agent before sending it to the ISP's news >server? Yes, my own system runs that way (I run a CNews server, as I am sure you all know). I download mostly from NIN (news.individual.net), but for some obscure groups from other servers, and I gateway in this list and some others. Anything I post from my newsreader gets injected into my local server (but, since Injection-Info, Injection-Date and .POSTED are not yet implemented, the only evidence inside an article is the presence of an Xref header and a short Path). For sending stuff out to the wide world, I again use various servers according to the group. CNews is configurable to use any script you care to provide for each outgoing feed. So I can arrange for each feed whether it looks like a relay (using IHAVE) or like an injection (using POST, or the NNRP "IHAVE" which is really injection) or some mail2news, or a gateway to a list such as this. So, for most normal groups I relay to Manchester University and, 30 seconds later, inject to NIN. The University facility is useful because it is guaranteed not to munge anything that might break a PGPVERIFY, but its administration is a complete shambles (it has been totally down for the last couple of weeks). OTOH NIN is extremely reliable, but fussy about what it accepts (e.g. it insists that all From mail addresses are genuine and checks that an MX record exists). So when wearing my part-time uk.net.news.announce moderator's hat and having to post a Call For Votes from a votetaker who insists on munging his From address to defeat spam harvesters, I have to rely on the Manchester server to get it out. All that is, of course, quite untypical of the average Usenet user, but illustrates some of the stranger corner cases that can arise. So, technically speaking, when an article is injected at NIN, it is "reinjection". So when USEFOR/USEPRO are in force I shall have to consider what Injection-Info etc headers to generate, and whether to include them in all my outgoing feeds or not, and that will depend I suppose on what NIN are prepared to accept. It so happens that I never send out an article that was not generated locally, otherwise I would need to be much more careful. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBMGibfh077913; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:44:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBMGibLY077912; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:44:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls6.std.com [192.74.137.146]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBMGiZXn077906 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:44:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from schlitt@world.std.com) Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (root@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kBMGe1bL020489; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:40:03 -0500 Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id kBMGdRFg3613339; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:39:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (schlitt@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) with ESMTP id kBMGdQgP3610598; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:39:26 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shell01.TheWorld.com: schlitt owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:39:26 -0500 From: Dan Schlitt <schlitt@world.std.com> X-X-Sender: schlitt@shell01.TheWorld.com To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> cc: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>, ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message IDs and moderators In-Reply-To: <EA4AB73577C04267B8272DFF@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.56.0612221135210.3602574@shell01.TheWorld.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612191114390.30210@shellvm.peak.org> <871wmvhcja.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAn2zJ.EGt@clerew.man.ac.uk> <EA4AB73577C04267B8272DFF@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.5 (2006-08-29) on pcls6.std.com X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.4/2367/Thu Dec 21 11:35:52 2006 on pcls6.std.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Customs, traditions, etc. are not protocol issues. They are useage issues if anything at all is to be said about them. Defining the boundry as Russ has done seems quite reasonable. /dan -- Dan Schlitt schlitt@world.std.com On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > > > --On torsdag, desember 21, 2006 19:47:43 +0000 Charles Lindsey > <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > In <871wmvhcja.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> > > writes: > > > >> stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes: > > > >>> Yes, and that is why I expect the attempt to get the codified right to > >>> edit articles in any way the moderator wishes removed will be a losing > >>> battle. It would be impossible to prevent, it isn't a matter for the > >>> protocol, and many people don't care. I cannot accept it on ethical > >>> grounds, however, and that's why I have to object to it being made > >>> explicit. > > > >> Okay, that makes sense to me. I'm also happy to try to reword what the > >> protocol document says so that it specifies that it doesn't constrain > >> rather than giving explicit blessing to behavior that is controversial. > >> That can be tricky to do and still be clear, but the purpose, as far as > >> I'm concerned, is to draw a clear boundary around the protocol and say > >> that beyond that boundary the protocol doesn't place requirements, not to > >> say that the protocol is implicitly blessing some particular course of > >> action. > > > > Yes, but the trouble is that "clear boundaries" do not exist in the Real > > World (TM). Whatever we say, moderators will continue to do whatever they > > do, and offended readers will send flames and LARTs to ISPs, the B8MB, > > their lawyers, NANU, and anywhere else they can think of. And eventually > > the fuss will die down and peace will resume. That is the way that Usenet > > works. But what we don't want is for any of the parties in the flame war > > to be able to point to the standard and say "look, it says that moderators > > can make any alterations they choose". > > Poppycock. We do that all the time (define clear boundaries). > > And we have tended to put LESS requirements on operators' behaviour as time > goes by, exactly because our well-meant requirements, stated in an earlier > time, was used as a LART against people in inappropriate ways. > > That's why whe had to revise WHOIS to make it clear that there's no > PROTOCOL requirement to put the telephone number into a WHOIS record, for > instance. The "rfc-ignorant" folks were LARTing. > > (in case some people haven't seen this term recently: I think LART = Loser > Attitude Readjustment Tool, also called a "clue-by-4"....) > > > The fact is that Usenet has 'customs', 'conventions' and 'rules' > > established by consensus amongst its users and/or the servers that carry > > it, and you cannot describe how it works without at least admitting that > > they exist (though just how they are established is another matter). > > USEPRO at least admitted that they existed, and hinted at various places > > that they needed to be followed. Maybe USEPRO said too much, but RUSSPRO > > has gone to the opposite extreme, and that does not work either. > > In the cases cited so far, it works for me. > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBMD2hAh006890; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:02:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBMD2hwd006889; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:02:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBMD2ehV006865 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:02:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Gxk2p-0000u4-Da for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:02:39 +0100 Received: from d252196.dialin.hansenet.de ([80.171.252.196]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:02:39 +0100 Received: from nobody by d252196.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:02:39 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: OT (was: Message IDs and moderators) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:00:16 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 39 Message-ID: <458BD6E0.6F21@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612191114390.30210@shellvm.peak.org> <871wmvhcja.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAn2zJ.EGt@clerew.man.ac.uk> <EA4AB73577C04267B8272DFF@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: d252196.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Some potential cases of TIN[WU] (= "There Is No We or Us"): >> But what we don't want is for any of the parties in the flame war >> to be able to point to the standard and say "look, it says that >> moderators can make any alterations they choose". > Poppycock. We do that all the time (define clear boundaries). > And we have tended to put LESS requirements on operators' behaviour > as time goes by, exactly because our well-meant requirements, > stated in an earlier time, was used as a LART against people in > inappropriate ways. > That's why whe had to revise WHOIS to make it clear that there's > no PROTOCOL requirement to put the telephone number into a WHOIS > record, for instance. The "rfc-ignorant" folks were LARTing. They still do this for _wrong_ phone numbers, same idea as in the WDPRS (ICANN's whois data problem report system). Killing RFC 954 didn't help "you", I've found RFC 1032 to replace 954 by something "better" than 3912. Of course RFC 1591 would be the best, but it's "only" informational. John said that's bogus, and RFC 1591 should be a BCP. With that I think that I could convince the RFCI folks to replace RFC 1032 by 1591. But Brian didn't like John's proposal to fix the category of 1591, so that's at a stalemate for now. >> Maybe USEPRO said too much, but RUSSPRO has gone to the opposite >> extreme, and that does not work either. > In the cases cited so far, it works for me. Not for me, like RFC 3912 was a case of "Do Not Publish". At that time I still thought that the RFCI folks would know how to stop it in its "Last Call". It turned out that they didn't know it... :-( Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBM7JrBe032183; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:19:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBM7JrBK032182; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:19:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBM7Jq8K032176 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:19:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 021774CDDE for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:19:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD374C688 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:19:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B6E5CE7C2C; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:19:49 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Leaf node news servers and posting (Re: Message IDs and moderators) In-Reply-To: <65485825E312C10C07CCE44B@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> (Harald Tveit Alvestrand's message of "Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:48:08 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612191114390.30210@shellvm.peak.org> <871wmvhcja.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAn2zJ.EGt@clerew.man.ac.uk> <65485825E312C10C07CCE44B@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:19:49 -0800 Message-ID: <87wt4k9z3e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes: > can someone who actually runs one of those beasts explain how they > handle posting of articles - in particular, whether they really make an > article available to their local serving agent before sending it to the > ISP's news server? In actual practice, they work the way that I describe them in my document, namely as two independent networks and a gateway with all gatewaying work done by the stand-alone server. Take, for instance, the popular news package "suck." It pulls down messages from a remote system using reader commands and then injects them into a local news server using IHAVE (a relaying command). Then, when someone posts locally to the server, that posting is accepted by the local server, immediately made available to the local server's readers, and queued in what, to the server, looks like a regular outgoing feed, a text file that contains a queue of message IDs to send to a remote server. However, rather than running a typical relayer command to do that sending, one runs rpost instead. rpost takes the message from the local system, converts it back into a proto-article by stripping or renaming NNTP-Posting-Host, X-Trace, and other unstandardized trace headers plus headers such as Xref, and then offers it to the remote injection agent as a new article. In practice, this works fine. Currently, the Date header is conventionally preserved through this transaction, which helps protect against a badly misconfigured rpost client posting old messages. The one place where my document would change this, which is a side effect of the introduction of Injection-Date, is that rpost would gain an additional requirement of doing date checks itself to be sure that it wasn't given a bad batch of ancient articles that shouldn't be gatewayed. Currently, injecting agents are still also required to check the Date header. Should that requirement ever be dropped, the onus on preventing regurgitation of ancient articles would be entirely on rpost. This has advantages and drawbacks. In some respects, this scheme is a serious drawback to introducing Injection-Date; in the process of solving a not horribly significant problem with delayed postings from off-line readers that can be worked around in other ways, we're messing with one of the most basic parts of loop detection and introducing other complexities. However, this scenario also gains from the exact same enhancements as any other off-line post does: the actual posting date of the message can be retained even if the stand-alone server from which the posts are being gatewayed is off-line for several days. Most importantly, it puts the onus of the work on the agent that's introducing the risk and that is in the best position to know the correct action to take, rather than making every injection agent deal with this unusual case. What's in USEPRO contradicts existing practice. What's in my document is a translation of existing practice that introduces Injection-Date. My *preferred* solution after trying to sort out this whole area would be to get rid of Injection-Date as a nice idea that's too late to introduce, at which point we're back to what we have right now and what we know works, and which we therefore can make some guarantees about safety, but that requires revisiting USEFOR and it's not the time to do that. Failing that, modelling this as a gateway is substantially cleaner than trying to standardize reinjection and simplifies the picture considerably. The cost is one missed opportunity to catch a regurgitation of ancient articles at the injection agent level (and, in practice, not a missed opportunity in *this* standard since my document still requires that injection agents check the Date header, but a potential missed opportunity later should we ever drop that requirement). I think from a protocol design perspective, that tradeoff is worth it. The closer the protocol design is to what is being done today and is working today, the more comfortable I am that it doesn't have hidden gotchas that we're going to regret later. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBM6mFDv029174; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:48:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBM6mF36029173; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:48:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBM6mEX1029166 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:48:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 536AF259708; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:44:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20463-03; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:44:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.54] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B067259707; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:44:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:48:08 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>, ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Leaf node news servers and posting (Re: Message IDs and moderators) Message-ID: <65485825E312C10C07CCE44B@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: <JAn2zJ.EGt@clerew.man.ac.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612191114390.30210@shellvm.peak.org> <871wmvhcja.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAn2zJ.EGt@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> --On torsdag, desember 21, 2006 19:47:43 +0000 Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote: > But then there are still some corner cases. mostly tied up with > reinjection (which I have written at length about in another thread, and > which I am still hoping for a reply to). But here is an example of a > corner case. > > Some guy runs a news server on his home machine (quite a lot of people do > that, because they find it more convenient that fiddling with one of the > big newsreaders such as Turnpike or Agent). > > So he posts articles which appear at first in his local serving agent, and > then get sent to his ISP's news spool. His ISP will expect him to use > POST, and will add an Injection-Info, with complaints directed to the > abuse dept. OK so far, and the guy will have to arrange things are done as > his ISP requests. And, Shock Horror! maybe it even has an Xref when the > ISP gets it. can someone who actually runs one of those beasts explain how they handle posting of articles - in particular, whether they really make an article available to their local serving agent before sending it to the ISP's news server? Harald Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBM6joWF028841; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:45:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBM6jo05028840; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:45:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBM6jnmQ028834 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:45:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5870259708; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:42:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19724-09; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:42:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.54] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97496259707; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:42:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:45:43 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>, ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message IDs and moderators Message-ID: <EA4AB73577C04267B8272DFF@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: <JAn2zJ.EGt@clerew.man.ac.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612191114390.30210@shellvm.peak.org> <871wmvhcja.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAn2zJ.EGt@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> --On torsdag, desember 21, 2006 19:47:43 +0000 Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote: > > In <871wmvhcja.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> > writes: > >> stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes: > >>> Yes, and that is why I expect the attempt to get the codified right to >>> edit articles in any way the moderator wishes removed will be a losing >>> battle. It would be impossible to prevent, it isn't a matter for the >>> protocol, and many people don't care. I cannot accept it on ethical >>> grounds, however, and that's why I have to object to it being made >>> explicit. > >> Okay, that makes sense to me. I'm also happy to try to reword what the >> protocol document says so that it specifies that it doesn't constrain >> rather than giving explicit blessing to behavior that is controversial. >> That can be tricky to do and still be clear, but the purpose, as far as >> I'm concerned, is to draw a clear boundary around the protocol and say >> that beyond that boundary the protocol doesn't place requirements, not to >> say that the protocol is implicitly blessing some particular course of >> action. > > Yes, but the trouble is that "clear boundaries" do not exist in the Real > World (TM). Whatever we say, moderators will continue to do whatever they > do, and offended readers will send flames and LARTs to ISPs, the B8MB, > their lawyers, NANU, and anywhere else they can think of. And eventually > the fuss will die down and peace will resume. That is the way that Usenet > works. But what we don't want is for any of the parties in the flame war > to be able to point to the standard and say "look, it says that moderators > can make any alterations they choose". Poppycock. We do that all the time (define clear boundaries). And we have tended to put LESS requirements on operators' behaviour as time goes by, exactly because our well-meant requirements, stated in an earlier time, was used as a LART against people in inappropriate ways. That's why whe had to revise WHOIS to make it clear that there's no PROTOCOL requirement to put the telephone number into a WHOIS record, for instance. The "rfc-ignorant" folks were LARTing. (in case some people haven't seen this term recently: I think LART = Loser Attitude Readjustment Tool, also called a "clue-by-4"....) > The fact is that Usenet has 'customs', 'conventions' and 'rules' > established by consensus amongst its users and/or the servers that carry > it, and you cannot describe how it works without at least admitting that > they exist (though just how they are established is another matter). > USEPRO at least admitted that they existed, and hinted at various places > that they needed to be followed. Maybe USEPRO said too much, but RUSSPRO > has gone to the opposite extreme, and that does not work either. In the cases cited so far, it works for me. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBM5CaoU018958; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:12:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBM5CaVQ018957; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:12:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBM5CYhd018948 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:12:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3*clerew^man*ac$uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 458b6941.ed30.42 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:12:33 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBM5CVPj027048 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:12:31 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBM5CUSe027045 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:12:30 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23940 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Message IDs and moderators Message-ID: <JAn2zJ.EGt@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612191114390.30210@shellvm.peak.org> <871wmvhcja.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:47:43 GMT Lines: 115 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <871wmvhcja.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes: >> Yes, and that is why I expect the attempt to get the codified right to >> edit articles in any way the moderator wishes removed will be a losing >> battle. It would be impossible to prevent, it isn't a matter for the >> protocol, and many people don't care. I cannot accept it on ethical >> grounds, however, and that's why I have to object to it being made >> explicit. >Okay, that makes sense to me. I'm also happy to try to reword what the >protocol document says so that it specifies that it doesn't constrain >rather than giving explicit blessing to behavior that is controversial. >That can be tricky to do and still be clear, but the purpose, as far as >I'm concerned, is to draw a clear boundary around the protocol and say >that beyond that boundary the protocol doesn't place requirements, not to >say that the protocol is implicitly blessing some particular course of >action. Yes, but the trouble is that "clear boundaries" do not exist in the Real World (TM). Whatever we say, moderators will continue to do whatever they do, and offended readers will send flames and LARTs to ISPs, the B8MB, their lawyers, NANU, and anywhere else they can think of. And eventually the fuss will die down and peace will resume. That is the way that Usenet works. But what we don't want is for any of the parties in the flame war to be able to point to the standard and say "look, it says that moderators can make any alterations they choose". The fact is that Usenet has 'customs', 'conventions' and 'rules' established by consensus amongst its users and/or the servers that carry it, and you cannot describe how it works without at least admitting that they exist (though just how they are established is another matter). USEPRO at least admitted that they existed, and hinted at various places that they needed to be followed. Maybe USEPRO said too much, but RUSSPRO has gone to the opposite extreme, and that does not work either. Essentially, the customary expectation is that moderators may fiddle with "boilerplate" but no more, but how can you say that in precise terms? You can't, but you can at least point to "established custom", in a NOTE if needs be. The same is true for group creation and other such things. RUSSPRO uses the word "authorization" in various places, and such a term is definitely needed. But nowhere does it define that term, nor say who authorizes the authorized. USEPRO at least admitted that the problem existed, and carefully said that it did not attempt to provide an explicit answer, though it did say that the answer might vary from hierarchy to hierarchy. >> As a side issue -- how does one differentiate between a proto-article >> that has all the mandatory headers and a real article? What should be >> the result of differentiating between them? I.e., if you have a >> proto-article that contains all the mandatory headers, how do you treat >> it differently than a real article? >My document defines it as follows: > A proto-article has the same format as a normal article except that > the Injection-Date, Injection-Info, and Xref header fields MUST NOT > be present; the Path header field MUST NOT contain a "POSTED" <diag- > keyword>; and any of the following mandatory header fields MAY be > omitted: Message-ID, Date, and Path. I think it is not so much a matter of looking at the article as asking where it was located when you looked at it. If it was still on your machine waiting to go to the injector, or if it is in some moderator's input queue, then it is a proto-article. If it is already propagating around Usenet, then it an article. But then there are still some corner cases. mostly tied up with reinjection (which I have written at length about in another thread, and which I am still hoping for a reply to). But here is an example of a corner case. Some guy runs a news server on his home machine (quite a lot of people do that, because they find it more convenient that fiddling with one of the big newsreaders such as Turnpike or Agent). So he posts articles which appear at first in his local serving agent, and then get sent to his ISP's news spool. His ISP will expect him to use POST, and will add an Injection-Info, with complaints directed to the abuse dept. OK so far, and the guy will have to arrange things are done as his ISP requests. And, Shock Horror! maybe it even has an Xref when the ISP gets it. But now his neighbour hears that he has some newsgroups (mayble even some 'local' groups for his neighbourhood) and says "Hey! can you let me have a feed of those, and BTW can you feed me comp.widgets at the same time as I am interested in those". Now what does he do? He really ought to put an Injection-Date on what he sends to his neighbour, because he cannot be sure whether his neighbour has other connections (or more likely might establish other connections in the future without telling him), and the articles he supplies might leak out onto Usenet that way. So they had better be clean decent articles, traceable back to him. So now does he arrange to send different versions of an article to his neighbour and to his ISP, one already injected and the other not? Or does he send the same to both? Ah! Now we are into reinjection! Now is it a proto-article or a real article. Who knows? More importantly, who cares? Maybe his ISP absolutely forbids it. Fair enough, but if the ISP decides to reinject it, why not? He just replaces the Injection-Info, if present, with his own. BUT any Injection-Date MUST then be left as it is. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBLKkb7w099532; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:46:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBLKkbDY099531; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:46:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBLKkacM099525 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:46:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.1.99] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <RYryqgBpA3rC@rufus.isode.com>; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:46:35 +0000 Message-ID: <458AF2A0.9020801@isode.com> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:46:24 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org CC: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> Subject: Status of the USEFOR document Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Hi folks, After several discussions between Lisa, Harald and myself it became clear that making the reference to USEPRO normative would be the easiest/quickest way to remove remaining IESG DISCUSSes. This change will delay publication of the USEFOR document until the USEPRO document is approved by IESG. Any objections to doing that? Alexey P.S. If the WG finds some serious flaw in USEFOR while working on USEPRO, it would be still possible to remove USEFOR from the RFC editor's queue and revise it. However this would require another IETF LC and another IESG review, so this decision must not be done lightly. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBL2Svx7076691; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:28:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBL2SvD7076690; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:28:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBL2SuGM076673 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:28:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id CBB114CFFB for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:28:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFFB4C9C9 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:28:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 98261E7A62; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:28:55 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 In-Reply-To: <45899EF5.78BC@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:37:09 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <45890123.7090409@alvestrand.no> <45899EF5.78BC@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:28:55 -0800 Message-ID: <873b7a6kyg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > For the moderator business Russ offered to remove the offending > "arbitrary modifications". I offered to rephrase the current wording. I didn't offer to change anything protocol-wise about the current description in my draft, for so long as it's my draft, which includes the message ID issue. (If it's a working group draft, that's another matter.) -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBKKcW0L012527; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:38:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBKKcW98012526; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:38:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBKKcVrB012517 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:38:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Gx8CX-0003b5-S2 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:38:09 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.125 ([212.82.251.125]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:38:09 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.125 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:38:09 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:37:09 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 28 Message-ID: <45899EF5.78BC@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <45890123.7090409@alvestrand.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.125 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>> not a single person >> JFTR, s/not/only/ > Frank, are you stating that you think the WG should progress > from draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-06 and not progress from > draft-allbery-usefor-usepro? I can't tell what's easier, remove dubious topics from USEPRO, e.g. extract mvgroup to a different I-D, or add missing items to Russ' I-D. Apparently a majority prefers to try the latter. I'd prefer to go through Charles' long list of differences, point by point, maybe noted as issues, and get some decisions what we want. For "mvgroup" we're apparently almost clear to remove it from the main I-D. For the moderator business Russ offered to remove the offending "arbitrary modifications". > I'm asking you to speak clearly now. Russ said twice that I should not pick his draft, because our philosophies are incompatible, and I agreed, what's unclear about this ? Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBKKMo9D010481; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:22:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBKKMn2n010480; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:22:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBKKMl9N010466 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:22:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Gx7vf-0006EE-8F for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:20:43 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.125 ([212.82.251.125]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:20:42 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.125 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:20:42 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:16:12 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 39 Message-ID: <45899A0C.2BEC@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> <878xh38l9j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.125 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > I doubt many posters are going to care about the difference between a > message ID generated by their local news server and a message ID > generated by the moderator. +1 I mentioned 1..8 in the USEPRO duties only as an illustration that some potential oddities of proto-articles are already handled before a moderator sees the message (if all goes well as specified). > The situation only gets interesting when the poster themselves has > provided the message ID, which is an entirely different case. It's the interesting case - I don't care about any provisional M-ID used for the communication between the server where the article was submitted, and the moderator(s). If the first (and only the first) moderator somehow identifies a provisional M-ID he's free to beautify it. But modifying an original M-ID is utter dubious, and it could cause complete confusion if a later (not the first) moderator starts to modify an already approved M-ID. >> From the POV of the original poster the article was sent to its >> normal news server, anything else is an implementation detail of >> NetNews for its "moderated" magic. We could use the term >> "submitted article" for this third state. > We could, but I don't see what we gain by giving that state an > explicit label. It's apparently a part of your philosophy that anything that happens to proto articles isn't very interesting for the protocol, the show begins when it's injected. For my different philosophy the show begins when a news server didn't reject an article with some kind of error message. From my POV the moderators are a part of the protocol - modbot or human alike. E.g. "drop" isn't a valid implementation of "reject". Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBK9NsoS007017; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:23:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBK9Ns9c007016; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:23:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBK9NqvJ007009 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:23:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13D625972B; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:20:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06021-03; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:20:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1383259709; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:20:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45890123.7090409@alvestrand.no> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:23:47 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann wrote: > Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > >> not a single person >> > > JFTR, s/not/only/ Frank, are you stating that you think the WG should progress from draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-06 and not progress from draft-allbery-usefor-usepro? This is much more than a single issue, which may be worked on in either version. I'm asking you to speak clearly now. Harald Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBK0R7HR047301; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:27:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBK0R7lh047300; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:27:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBK0R6td047250 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:27:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E926E4CAF6 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:27:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8F94CAA3 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:27:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B6BA3E797D; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:27:04 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 In-Reply-To: <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:50:50 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:27:04 -0800 Message-ID: <878xh38l9j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > The duties of an injecting-agent in usepro-06 list "forward to > moderator" as point *_8_* At that time the Date, the Message-ID, and > other header fields are already guaranteed to be okay. > Apparently we have three states: 1 - proto-article, the stuff generated > by a newsreader (posting agent or followup-agent in the convoluted > USEPRO terminology), 2 - article, messages relayed between news servers, > or accessed by a newsreader (reading agent), 3 - some special state > between proto-article and article, the stuff forwarded from injecting > agent to a moderator, from there to another moderator, and eventually > it's either injected or rejected. It's still a proto-article, since it hasn't been injected. The current protocol does say that you forward after adding the Message-ID and Date header fields, though. It's not clear to me how many moderators would care if things weren't done in this order, but given that this is how news servers have always done it, it's probably not worth possibly breaking anything. So yes, there is an intermediate state of "proto-article but with mandatory header fields created" that shows up for the moderator, but it's mostly in there for backward compatibility and is not otherwise hugely significant from a protocol standpoint. It's also not hugely significant from a poster standpoint, I believe. I doubt many posters are going to care about the difference between a message ID generated by their local news server and a message ID generated by the moderator. The situation only gets interesting when the poster themselves has provided the message ID, which is an entirely different case. > From the POV of the original poster the article was sent to its normal > news server, anything else is an implementation detail of NetNews for > its "moderated" magic. We could use the term "submitted article" for > this third state. We could, but I don't see what we gain by giving that state an explicit label. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBK0Jo8J046723; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:19:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBK0Jo8U046722; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:19:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBK0Jn3B046715 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:19:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GwpBO-0006d5-F7 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:19:42 +0100 Received: from du-017-145.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.246.145]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:19:42 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-017-145.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:19:42 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: ASCII Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:17:12 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 24 Message-ID: <45888108.7B63@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAC0yG.5r2@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4583FEF1.49A1@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejqw4zgw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-017-145.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: >> IMO it's obvious, but that future draft could say that using >> any charset that's not UTF-8, like Latin-1, is NOT RECOMMENDED >> if non-ASCII group names are affected. > Exactly. Harald proposed MUSTard, he's probably right, and my RECOMMENDED is too weak. Buth that's an issue for a future USEPRO-bis in 2010. > We could RECOMMEND use of either US-ASCII or UTF-8 for the charset > in the name of making future transitions easier, though. > I don't see any other non-ASCII character set cropping up in > the IETF. BOCU-1 isn't user friendly, UTF-4 is no alternative, SCSU has no unique encoding, UTF-7 makes no sense in an 8bits environment, and the s-o-1036 concept of 2047-encoded words was apparently stillborn, Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJNrCNo044569; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:53:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBJNrCr7044568; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:53:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJNrA65044562 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:53:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwolb-00031U-L1 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:53:03 +0100 Received: from du-017-145.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.246.145]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:53:03 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-017-145.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:53:03 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:50:50 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 29 Message-ID: <45887ADA.95B@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-017-145.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Harald Alvestrand wrote: > not a single person JFTR, s/not/only/ The duties of an injecting-agent in usepro-06 list "forward to moderator" as point *_8_* At that time the Date, the Message-ID, and other header fields are already guaranteed to be okay. Apparently we have three states: 1 - proto-article, the stuff generated by a newsreader (posting agent or followup-agent in the convoluted USEPRO terminology), 2 - article, messages relayed between news servers, or accessed by a newsreader (reading agent), 3 - some special state between proto-article and article, the stuff forwarded from injecting agent to a moderator, from there to another moderator, and eventually it's either injected or rejected. From the POV of the original poster the article was sent to its normal news server, anything else is an implementation detail of NetNews for its "moderated" magic. We could use the term "submitted article" for this third state. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJKB0H1018446; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:11:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBJKB0ap018445; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:11:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJKAxnQ018438 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:11:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 04F024BFEF for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:10:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A884CD16 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:10:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 820ABE7AA6; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:10:49 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message IDs and moderators In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612191114390.30210@shellvm.peak.org> (stanley@peak.org's message of "Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:41:37 -0800 (PST)") Organization: The Eyrie References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612191114390.30210@shellvm.peak.org> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:10:49 -0800 Message-ID: <871wmvhcja.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> If we go with the definitions in my draft, a proto-article is not an >> article. There is an intentionally sharp distinction between a >> proto-article and an article. A proto-article only becomes an article >> once it has been injected. > I would say that any group of bytes that is being produced with the > intent of becoming a news article, and which follows the standards for > formatting and definitions, should be subject to those standards. I do agree with that. [ snipping things that I don't disagree with ] > Were Peter to start posting individual articles under other people's > names to comp.risks, with the same kinds of editing he does in the > digest, then it would be a corner case. It would then be open to debate > whether his editing is acceptable for a moderated group and having the > original author's name applied to a different message than he sent. > Perhaps a better "corner case" was comp.dcom.telecom. Enough people > objected to the editing by the moderator of that group that they started > another one -- comp.dcom.telecom.tech. So, we have at least one > precedent where moderator editing was considered unacceptable by enough > people to form a new group. Good point. comp.dcom.telecom is a better example. In that case, we had some people who were comfortable with the editorial policies of the moderator and some who weren't, and as a result the group split. I think that's a good encapsulation of the situation, actually. Extensive moderator editing is generally frowned upon and it makes a lot of people unhappy when done on Usenet, but it's also sometimes done successfully and sometimes particular groups are comfortable with it. It's that dynamic that, to me, moves it from standard to best practice. >> We need to make sure that our standard is not incompatible with what >> people do in practice, including the corner cases, where those cases >> are accepted. > Yes, and that is why I expect the attempt to get the codified right to > edit articles in any way the moderator wishes removed will be a losing > battle. It would be impossible to prevent, it isn't a matter for the > protocol, and many people don't care. I cannot accept it on ethical > grounds, however, and that's why I have to object to it being made > explicit. Okay, that makes sense to me. I'm also happy to try to reword what the protocol document says so that it specifies that it doesn't constrain rather than giving explicit blessing to behavior that is controversial. That can be tricky to do and still be clear, but the purpose, as far as I'm concerned, is to draw a clear boundary around the protocol and say that beyond that boundary the protocol doesn't place requirements, not to say that the protocol is implicitly blessing some particular course of action. My currently language doesn't do this anywhere near as well as it could. > Even if you say "moderators may edit according to group standards", > since the moderator is free to set the standards, you're saying the same > thing. Agreed. > As a side issue -- how does one differentiate between a proto-article > that has all the mandatory headers and a real article? What should be > the result of differentiating between them? I.e., if you have a > proto-article that contains all the mandatory headers, how do you treat > it differently than a real article? My document defines it as follows: A proto-article has the same format as a normal article except that the Injection-Date, Injection-Info, and Xref header fields MUST NOT be present; the Path header field MUST NOT contain a "POSTED" <diag- keyword>; and any of the following mandatory header fields MAY be omitted: Message-ID, Date, and Path. Since if one is following the new protocol an injecting agent MUST add an Injection-Date header, that's the clearest point of distinction. If it has an Injection-Date header, it's an article, not a proto-article. However, since Injection-Date is a new invention of this document, there is no clear way of determining that a message is a proto-article when you take into account existing practice. There are various markers that tell you that it's an article (presence of any of those three headers or the POSTED Path diagnostic), and of course if it's missing one of those mandatory headers it's a proto-article, but there are messages that will be ambiguous. Probably the best way of determining whether something is an article or proto-article currently is to look at whether it has an Xref header field. That header field is optional, but nearly all servers add it and posting agents do not, so it's a clear sign that the article has been injected. Note that inclusion of Xref in this set is new in my document and is a change from the existing USEPRO draft (but reflects current practice in, for example, INN, which will reject attempts to post messages with Xref headers already present). This is precisely one of the reasons why I added it to this definition. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJJfhAG014841; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:41:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBJJfhQZ014840; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:41:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from shellvm.peak.org (shellvm.peak.org [69.59.192.89]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJJfgFc014832 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:41:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from shellvm.peak.org (centoside.peak.org [127.0.0.1]) by shellvm.peak.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kBJJffme030280 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:41:41 -0800 Received: from localhost (stanley@localhost) by shellvm.peak.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id kBJJfb6L030277 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:41:41 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: shellvm.peak.org: stanley owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:41:37 -0800 (PST) From: stanley@peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message IDs and moderators Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612191114390.30210@shellvm.peak.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >If we go with the definitions in my draft, a proto-article is not an >article. There is an intentionally sharp distinction between a >proto-article and an article. A proto-article only becomes an article >once it has been injected. I would say that any group of bytes that is being produced with the intent of becoming a news article, and which follows the standards for formatting and definitions, should be subject to those standards. Under that "philosophy", even a proto-article's header fields have the meanings that RFC1036 and eventually our standards define for them. That includes From and Message-ID fields. But where I'm taking this is not specifically involving the idea that the message id, once applied, cannot be changed by a moderator. It will eventually be a discussion of the "moderators may edit articles in any way they see fit" concept -- once we've settled on which draft we use. >I think RISKS Digest is an excellent example of a corner case. We agree to disagree. comp.risks is a moderated newsgroup, yes. That's where the relevance ends. Each "article" that appears in the newsgroup is posted by the editor, not individuals, and are posted under the editor's name. That editor uses a system of attributing material to the authors he quotes in his digest, but at no time does he claim that the digest itself was originated by anyone other than himself. Were Peter to start posting individual articles under other people's names to comp.risks, with the same kinds of editing he does in the digest, then it would be a corner case. It would then be open to debate whether his editing is acceptable for a moderated group and having the original author's name applied to a different message than he sent. Perhaps a better "corner case" was comp.dcom.telecom. Enough people objected to the editing by the moderator of that group that they started another one -- comp.dcom.telecom.tech. So, we have at least one precedent where moderator editing was considered unacceptable by enough people to form a new group. >We need to >make sure that our standard is not incompatible with what people do in >practice, including the corner cases, where those cases are accepted. Yes, and that is why I expect the attempt to get the codified right to edit articles in any way the moderator wishes removed will be a losing battle. It would be impossible to prevent, it isn't a matter for the protocol, and many people don't care. I cannot accept it on ethical grounds, however, and that's why I have to object to it being made explicit. Even if you say "moderators may edit according to group standards", since the moderator is free to set the standards, you're saying the same thing. As a side issue -- how does one differentiate between a proto-article that has all the mandatory headers and a real article? What should be the result of differentiating between them? I.e., if you have a proto-article that contains all the mandatory headers, how do you treat it differently than a real article? Yes, an injecting agent is supposed to throw away certain things, but that's a specific case based on an action by a user. In general, what's the difference? Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJHCAeh095879; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBJHCAeX095872; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJHC8sZ095837 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3^clerew&man#ac$uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45881d66.9eeb.26c for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:06 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBJHC5kb000040 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBJHC5N1000036 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23924 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Message IDs and moderators Message-ID: <JAJ18C.HL1@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612181152040.26053@shellvm.peak.org> <87r6uw50jl.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:19:24 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <87r6uw50jl.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >But one of the goals of this process of comparing two different starting >points is to determine which philosophy to use as the foundation of the >draft, which is why I'm making very clear what changes are incidental and >what changes express that different philosophy. Adopting my draft but >then changing all the philosophical differences back to Charles's draft >makes no sense; if we're going to do that, we should proceed with >Charles's draft and use mine only as interesting input. I think that is a fair summary of the situation, and these issues of philosophy need to be discussed. Indeed, I shall have a lot to say on that subject presently, but I chose to start with a list of pure protocol issues, because I had to start somewhere, and it makes no sense for the WG to discuss all the topics that need discussing simultaneously. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJHCAxc095881; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBJHCAas095877; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJHC8wq095832 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3$clerew&man^ac#uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45881d64.159da.1fe for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:04 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBJHC4f2000022 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:04 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBJHC447000018 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:04 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23922 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 Message-ID: <JAJ0Ep.Gnn@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4586FB11.5000506@isode.com> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:01:37 GMT Lines: 24 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <4586FB11.5000506@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com> writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >>I do not see how two people in favour, >> >Charles, some opinions were stated privately, so you can't assume that >only 2 people were in favor of using Russ' version. Well, I can only comment on what I see reported on this list. Though it does seem, from another thread, that one of your anonymous voters might be having second thoughts. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJHCAAt095884; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBJHCAAQ095878; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJHC8gs095839 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3&clerew^man^ac$uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45881d67.d6d6.462 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:07 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBJHC6Wo000056 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:07 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBJHC6tL000053 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:06 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23926 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: On the issue of publication interval between USEFOR and USEPRO Message-ID: <JAJ1nx.I46@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <458178C0.30101@alvestrand.no> <JABzoz.4Dq@clerew.man.ac.uk> <1D33911C-71F5-409A-8D8A-649A701FF6C6@osafoundation.org> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:28:45 GMT Lines: 32 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <1D33911C-71F5-409A-8D8A-649A701FF6C6@osafoundation.org> Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> writes: >--Apple-Mail-5--813014145 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=US-ASCII; > delsp=yes; > format=flowed >On Dec 15, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> But whatever, please don't start tinkering with trying to make >> USEPRO a >> Normative Reference. >Why not? Because I don't think any of the items mentioned so far actually require a normative reference. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJHCAgG095883; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBJHCAjW095873; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJHC8Mx095833 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3*clerew#man*ac^uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45881d64.f081.35 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:04 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBJHC3P8000013 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:04 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBJHC3FI000005 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:03 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23921 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: ASCII (Re: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata) Message-ID: <JAJ0BA.GIJ@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAC0yG.5r2@clerew.man.ac.uk> <FACC7B0D595A32D4D72AEDF5@[192.168.1.103]> <JAHJ42.EM8@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87mz5k50bp.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:59:34 GMT Lines: 36 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <87mz5k50bp.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >I think that also describes the same situation, but I prefer the wording >above. I think it's clearer and more explicit. I think we are agreed about the effect to be achieved. But the wording needs to be such that readers not familiar with the background to this issue will easily be able to see what it implies. Moreover, if ever we do go for UTF-8 newsgroup names, then it would be nice to have a wording that can be adapted, rather than being a complete rewrite. But I don't think either wordings suggested really works as it stands. >You only have to require a charset of UTF-8 if you have non-ASCII >newsgroups; otherwise, anything can be used that satisfies the above >requirement. So I don't agree that you would lose backward compatibility. Ah! So when that happens, existing ASCII newsgroups could continue to use, say, Iso8859-1 in checkgroups, but any new Utf-8 groups would be restricted to using UTF-8. Seems slightly weird, but it would work. BTW, I agree with the suggestion, in another thread, that RECCOMMENDING (or recommending) UTF-8 at this stage would be a good idea. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJHCAut095882; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBJHCAo5095876; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJHC8sZ095838 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster*pop3$clerew&man$ac^uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45881d66.e2cf.91 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:06 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBJHC6d6000048 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:06 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBJHC6Or000045 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:06 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23925 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Responses from the USEFOR WG Chairs on IESG DISCUSSes Message-ID: <JAJ1Kv.HzF@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <45795ED3.7030402@alvestrand.no> <tslhcvtklq7.fsf@cz.mit.edu> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:26:55 GMT Lines: 36 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <tslhcvtklq7.fsf@cz.mit.edu> Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> writes: >I guess what I don't understand here is why there is not a sufficient >justification for "receivers SHOULD be able to handle messages that >are valid RFC 2822 messages but that do not meet all the additional >restrictions of this specification." I'm particularly thinking of the >generic message header restrictions not the requirements for >usenet article without those two headers. There seems to be an >interoperability justification for being liberal in this area and I >have not seen an argument advanced why a SHOULD would be >inappropriate. I've seen arguments about why some implementations >might not choose to follow such a SHOULD; while that makes sense, it >is not an argument against the SHOULD. Whenever the WG has discussed this topic, it has expressed a very clear view against any such SHOULD. Why should newsreaders be even RECOMMENDED to accept constructs which have never ever appeared in News Articles? I think the view has, rather, been that the next revision of RFC 2822 should seriously consider moving a few of the key differences from the 'generate' syntax (MAY generate) into the 'obsolete' syntax (MUST NOT generate but MUST accept). The space after the colon is a case in point. Neither email messages nor news articles are ever generated with that space missing, so moving it into the obs syntax would have no practical effect. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJHCAc3095880; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBJHCAcK095875; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJHC8ut095836 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3&clerew#man*ac^uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45881d65.832b.2b3 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:05 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBJHC5NA000030 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBJHC4PA000027 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:12:04 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23923 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Message IDs and moderators Message-ID: <JAJ11D.HCB@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612181152040.26053@shellvm.peak.org> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:15:13 GMT Lines: 40 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612181152040.26053@shellvm.peak.org> stanley@peak.org writes: >Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>From the perspective of the protocol, nothing in the protocol breaks if >>the moderator changes the message ID. I know this from a practical basis: >>many moderators do this now and Usenet still works. >Agree. Cancels must be delayed until the article arrives at the poster's >site, but if the poster is cancelling an unapproved forgery he'd have >to wait anyway. But please bear in mind that a person wanting to cancel his own article in a moderated group has to ask the moderator to do it for him, because the normal protocol will send his cancel to the moderator in the usual way. But supposing he wants to issue the cancel moments after he has posted it (2nd thoughts, glaring typo to be fixed, whatever), then he can only send it using the original Message-ID. That will surely confuse the moderator. The whole problem with Usenet, which is quite unlike any other IETF protocol, is that interoperability means more than getting the articles correctly from A to B. It is a complete system (an "adhocratic anarchy" as someone wrote in our earlier drafts) that works, but only if numerous rules which go beyond the normal ideas of IETF "interoperability" are observed. So, for Usenet, saying "nothing in the protocol breaks if X happens" is not always an overriding argument. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJAgH9w048873; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:42:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBJAgHWn048872; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:42:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJAgF7b048865 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:42:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C341259721; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:38:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30165-10; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:38:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F5E259720; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:38:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4587C201.9070909@alvestrand.no> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:42:09 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> I did not bother listing all the participants in the poll, since not a single person had stated a clear preference for continuing with your document, Charles. A number of strong opinions + no opposing opinions constitutes a reasonable consensus. Harald Charles Lindsey wrote: > In <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes: > > >> All the participants who have stated a preference prefer >> draft-allbery-usefor-usepro as the basis for the next version of the >> USEPRO draft. >> > > >> Two people have stated opinions that I do not parse as a preference one >> way or the other: >> > > >> - Charles thinks that we need further discussion >> - Frank does not agree (or is not sure he agrees?) with Russ' dividing >> line between "protocol matters" and "best current practice" matters. >> > > >> Nevertheless, I believe that it's safe to conclude that the next version >> of the draft will be based on draft-allbery-usefor-usepro. >> > > I do not see how two people in favour, with one person saying he was > against unless the philosophy was changed, plus one asking for more time > for discussion (of which there has been hardly any up until the last > couple of days) can be interpreted as even a "rough" consensus. Possibly > such a consensus might emerge after more discussion, and hopefully some > further opinions. > > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJAaTq6048276; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:36:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBJAaTwG048275; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:36:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBJAaSXW048268 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:36:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7ACB259721; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:33:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30062-09; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:32:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BDD259720; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:32:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4587C0A3.50508@alvestrand.no> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:36:19 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Proto-article (Re: Message IDs and moderators) References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612181152040.26053@shellvm.peak.org> <87r6uw50jl.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87r6uw50jl.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes: > >> Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > > >>> When sending proto-articles around to moderators, no Netnews article >>> has yet been created. >>> > > >> A proto-article is an article. At the least, it is an RFC2822 message. >> > > If we go with the definitions in my draft, a proto-article is not an > article. There is an intentionally sharp distinction between a > proto-article and an article. A proto-article only becomes an article > once it has been injected. > The definition in our finished "usefor" document is: 1.5 Definitions An "article" is the unit of Netnews, analogous to an [RFC2822] "message". A "proto-article" is one that has not yet been injected into the news system. In contrast to an "article", a "proto-article" may lack some mandatory header fields. A "message identifier" (Section 3.1.3) is a unique identifier for an article, usually supplied by the "user agent" that posted it or, failing that, by the "news server". It distinguishes the article from every other article ever posted anywhere. Articles with the same message identifier are treated as if they are the same article regardless of any differences in the body or header fields. Note that it says nothing about whether or not a message-id can identify a proto-article. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIN5uG7073544; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:05:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIN5uY5073542; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:05:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (carter-zimmerman.dyn.MIT.EDU [18.188.3.148]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIN5s18073534 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:05:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from hartmans@mit.edu) Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 2269CE0050; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:05:43 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-usefor@imc.org, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Subject: Re: Responses from the USEFOR WG Chairs on IESG DISCUSSes References: <45795ED3.7030402@alvestrand.no> <tslhcvtklq7.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <87irg85012.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:05:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87irg85012.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:09:29 -0800") Message-ID: <tsld56ghkjc.fsf@cz.mit.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: Russ> Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> writes: >> I guess what I don't understand here is why there is not a >> sufficient justification for "receivers SHOULD be able to >> handle messages that are valid RFC 2822 messages but that do >> not meet all the additional restrictions of this >> specification." Russ> Some valid messages under RFC 2822 cannot be transmitted via Russ> NNTP, as they break fundamental parts of the protocol. For Russ> example, RFC 2822 allows escaped spaces in the LHS of a Russ> message ID, whereas NNTP commands frequently contain message Russ> IDs as arguments and always treat a space as an argument Russ> separator with no escaping possible. Given the ubiquity of Russ> NNTP as a Netnews transport, I don't believe it makes sense Russ> to permit articles that can never be transmitted over NNTP. Russ> Other valid messages under RFC 2822 use corners of RFC 2822 Russ> that are only seen in test messages (such as omitting the Russ> space after the colon of a header field), and while we could Russ> make a statement that receivers SHOULD be able to handle Russ> such messages, realistically such a statement will only make Russ> the standard at odds with existing implementations that will Russ> probably never be fixed. Since such messages do not exist Russ> in practice, the changes of anyone making the required Russ> changes to existing news software to support them seems very Russ> low, regardless of what we say in a standards document. And that would be an argument against should. Perhaps you could convince Mark, but I doubt it:-) Anyway, I'm happy to remove that part of my discuss. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIMLbQp068844; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:21:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIMLbI0068843; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:21:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIMLaWt068836 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:21:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B9594BF81 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:21:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF834BF39 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:21:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 05E80E7C75; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:21:36 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: ASCII In-Reply-To: <4583FEF1.49A1@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:13:06 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAC0yG.5r2@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4583FEF1.49A1@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:21:35 -0800 Message-ID: <87ejqw4zgw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > IMO it's obvious, but that future draft could say that using > any charset that's not UTF-8, like Latin-1, is NOT RECOMMENDED > if non-ASCII group names are affected. Exactly. Currently non-ASCII group names are banned entirely by USEFOR, so it doesn't make much sense to say this now. We could RECOMMEND use of either US-ASCII or UTF-8 for the charset in the name of making future transitions easier, though. I can see some merit in going that route, particularly since I think we're fairly certain at this point that newsgroup names will either be UTF-8 or some ASCII encoding. I don't see any other non-ASCII character set cropping up in the IETF. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIM9Ut0067195; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:09:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIM9Uk2067194; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:09:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIM9TZs067187 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:09:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 36EE44C78C; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E28B4C59A; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0934DE7C75; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:09:29 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-usefor@imc.org, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Subject: Re: Responses from the USEFOR WG Chairs on IESG DISCUSSes In-Reply-To: <tslhcvtklq7.fsf@cz.mit.edu> (Sam Hartman's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:11:44 -0500") Organization: The Eyrie References: <45795ED3.7030402@alvestrand.no> <tslhcvtklq7.fsf@cz.mit.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:09:29 -0800 Message-ID: <87irg85012.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> writes: > I guess what I don't understand here is why there is not a sufficient > justification for "receivers SHOULD be able to handle messages that are > valid RFC 2822 messages but that do not meet all the additional > restrictions of this specification." Some valid messages under RFC 2822 cannot be transmitted via NNTP, as they break fundamental parts of the protocol. For example, RFC 2822 allows escaped spaces in the LHS of a message ID, whereas NNTP commands frequently contain message IDs as arguments and always treat a space as an argument separator with no escaping possible. Given the ubiquity of NNTP as a Netnews transport, I don't believe it makes sense to permit articles that can never be transmitted over NNTP. Other valid messages under RFC 2822 use corners of RFC 2822 that are only seen in test messages (such as omitting the space after the colon of a header field), and while we could make a statement that receivers SHOULD be able to handle such messages, realistically such a statement will only make the standard at odds with existing implementations that will probably never be fixed. Since such messages do not exist in practice, the changes of anyone making the required changes to existing news software to support them seems very low, regardless of what we say in a standards document. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIM3Vf8066773; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:03:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIM3Vux066772; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:03:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIM3Uqw066766 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:03:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4CAB74BFC1 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:03:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6224BDEA for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:03:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D8D8CE7C75; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:03:06 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: ASCII (Re: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata) In-Reply-To: <JAHJ42.EM8@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:50:26 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAC0yG.5r2@clerew.man.ac.uk> <FACC7B0D595A32D4D72AEDF5@[192.168.1.103]> <JAHJ42.EM8@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:03:06 -0800 Message-ID: <87mz5k50bp.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes: [ Proposed new text ] >>>> Implementations predating this standard may not understand MIME >>>> headers and expect newsgroup names to be in ASCII. Therefore, >>>> regardless of what charset is used, the result of reading each >>>> octet of the body and setting bit 8 to zero MUST be a valid >>>> message specifying the same newsgroup name [or names for >>>> checkgroups]. There is no requirement that the newsgroup >>>> description survive this treatment. >> The language Russ suggested allows one to evaluate a specific message >> in a specific charset against the criterion - for instance, an >> ISO-2022-JP message MAY satisfy the criterion, IF the shift to Japanese >> characters always occurs in the description, and never in the newsgroup >> name. > OK, I see what the problem is now. Essentially, the property I suggested > needs to apply up to the TAB that introduces the description part. After > that, we don't care. Right. > But anything with a bit8 set in the <newsgroup-name> part will break > existing software, because existing software will not be setting that > bit to zero before trying to interpret it. Correct. Which is why the above wording declares such messages invalid (since such a message would specify a different newsgroup name after the treatment described was applied). > So what you say must be more like: > The charset that is specified MUST have the property that any > valid <newsgroup-name> appearing at the start of each line, and > before the TAB character, is represented by the same sequence of > octets both in that charset and in ASCII (this does not preclude > that, beyond the TAB, there may be some shift character that > changes the interpretation of subsequent octets). I think that also describes the same situation, but I prefer the wording above. I think it's clearer and more explicit. > That also is wordy and might be improved, but at least it makes clear > what the issue is. The first sentence makes that clear, I think. >> If we ever want to standardize such a thing, I think the logical thing >> to do would be to say that the charset MUST be UTF-8. > Yes, but you then lose backward compatibility if you have earlier > allowed something else. You only have to require a charset of UTF-8 if you have non-ASCII newsgroups; otherwise, anything can be used that satisfies the above requirement. So I don't agree that you would lose backward compatibility. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBILwO4s066435; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:58:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBILwOgR066434; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:58:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBILwN0t066428 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:58:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D049F4CAE7 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:58:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FCE4C043 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:58:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8F6E3E7F2A; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:58:22 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message IDs and moderators In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612181152040.26053@shellvm.peak.org> (stanley@peak.org's message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:03:13 -0800 (PST)") Organization: The Eyrie References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612181152040.26053@shellvm.peak.org> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:58:22 -0800 Message-ID: <87r6uw50jl.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> When sending proto-articles around to moderators, no Netnews article >> has yet been created. > A proto-article is an article. At the least, it is an RFC2822 message. If we go with the definitions in my draft, a proto-article is not an article. There is an intentionally sharp distinction between a proto-article and an article. A proto-article only becomes an article once it has been injected. The forwarding to a moderator may or may not be an RFC 2822 message. That's the common case on Usenet right now, but we're talking about (and standardizing) any Netnews system. For many stand-alone hierarchies, a moderation submission will never travel via e-mail at all; it will be stored in a local database of some sort for approval by a moderator. And even if it does travel by e-mail, the RFC 2822 message may simply contain the submission as a sub-part, meaning that the message ID of the mail message is irrelevant to the submission itself. >> Again, consider the RISKS digest, which is a very illustrative corner >> case of the sort of thing that can happen to a submission to a >> moderated group. > RISKS Digest is a particularly poor illustration since the Digest is a > digest of a MAILING list which is distributed by moderated > newsgroup. Further, each article in that group is posted by the RISKS > digest author, and the headers of each article clearly represent that. I think RISKS Digest is an excellent example of a corner case. We need to make sure that our standard is not incompatible with what people do in practice, including the corner cases, where those cases are accepted. A moderated group does not necessarily have a one-to-one correspondance between messages from a poster and messages injected into the group, and we can't therefore require that the message ID be retained in all cases. We *could* say something more complex, namely that the message ID SHOULD be retained in cases where there's a one-to-one correspondance, but I still think this is a best-practice topic. (And I realize that this is a change from what I'd said way back when we first discussed this topic; it was a change resulting from reading through the entire draft and writing my own draft.) >> I'm being a bit hard-nosed here about saying "if you don't like it, >> maybe my draft isn't for you" because this is typical of multiple >> changes I made to remove remaining best-practice requirements from the >> protocol draft and that was one of the significant philosophical >> differences I have with the existing USEPRO. > We already have a problem with an editor that makes unilateral changes > to the draft(s) and ignores consensus. If using this draft means that > certain things are not negotiable, then I change my vote in the straw > poll. I think this is a misunderstanding about what my draft represents. Should my draft be adopted as a new starting point by the working group, any changes subsequent to that should not be made unilaterally and will not be made unilaterally by me, but only as the result of working group discussion. However, in the initial rewrite that I did, I made many unilateral changes. That's why the document has my name on it, not "ietf". It is my document, not a working group document, and it expresses my opinion. The purpose of this initial discussion is to decide whether that document is a better starting point than the current USEPRO document for further working group work. If mine is adopted and issued as the new official USEPRO document, then from that point forward full working group change control should be exerted over any change. But as long as the document is my personal draft, with my name on it, yes, I will make unilateral changes because that's the whole point of the exercise. If the draft becomes the working group document, then I will abide by working group consensus even if I disagree. If some change is so egregiously bad in my opinion that I cannot live with it, I may resign any formal role in the working group, but I won't say you can't use the text. But one of the goals of this process of comparing two different starting points is to determine which philosophy to use as the foundation of the draft, which is why I'm making very clear what changes are incidental and what changes express that different philosophy. Adopting my draft but then changing all the philosophical differences back to Charles's draft makes no sense; if we're going to do that, we should proceed with Charles's draft and use mine only as interesting input. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKY1lG057774; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:34:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIKY1O1057773; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:34:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKY0kf057767 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:34:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.1.99] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <RYb7NwBuf54A@rufus.isode.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:33:59 +0000 Message-ID: <4586FB11.5000506@isode.com> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:33:21 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey wrote: >In <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes: > > >>All the participants who have stated a preference prefer >>draft-allbery-usefor-usepro as the basis for the next version of the >>USEPRO draft. >> >> >>Two people have stated opinions that I do not parse as a preference one >>way or the other: >> >> >>- Charles thinks that we need further discussion >>- Frank does not agree (or is not sure he agrees?) with Russ' dividing >>line between "protocol matters" and "best current practice" matters. >> >> >>Nevertheless, I believe that it's safe to conclude that the next version >>of the draft will be based on draft-allbery-usefor-usepro. >> >> >I do not see how two people in favour, > Charles, some opinions were stated privately, so you can't assume that only 2 people were in favor of using Russ' version. >with one person saying he was >against unless the philosophy was changed, plus one asking for more time >for discussion (of which there has been hardly any up until the last >couple of days) can be interpreted as even a "rough" consensus. Possibly >such a consensus might emerge after more discussion, and hopefully some >further opinions. > > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKT9X0057219; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIKT9Ce057218; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKT4nN057182 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3$clerew*man*ac&uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 4586fa10.17c48.59f for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:04 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBIKT3Gp021666 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:03 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBIKT3SO021663 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:03 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23906 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Strawman consensus call, mvgroup control message Message-ID: <JAHJnE.FAu@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <45780AED.4000509@alvestrand.no> <J9ytKt.Lrr@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45801DE2.4F1C@xyzzy.claranet.de> <JA9oAF.2Dx@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4581F1CC.6A75@xyzzy.claranet.de> <JABtI2.KzM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <458401CE.1571@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:02:02 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <458401CE.1571@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >>> <http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.discuss/thread=10363/focus=10384> >> it looks like Lars has fixed whatever had caused the problem. >Yes, that's what he said in article number 10384. >> Perhaps you should try clicking on it again. AFAICS, GMANE does possess some pairs of newsgroups which are aliassed on top of each other. So the interesting question is whether, using NNTP, both versions of such groups appear to contain the same articles, and whether you can successfully post to the group under either name. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKTApo057227; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIKTAbc057226; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKT9fp057217 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3*clerew^man*ac*uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 4586fa14.38f7.21 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:08 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBIKT2r4021648 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:02 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBIKT2El021645 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:02 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23904 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 Message-ID: <JAHJAu.Euv@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <871wn27xoz.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4582015B.18F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <458229A9.4010102@mibsoftware.com> <458287A3.7E73@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:54:30 GMT Lines: 26 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <458287A3.7E73@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: >Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: >> IMHO, the GNKSA approach is probably better to address your concerns. >It's limited to newsreaders, otherwise I liked it. Maybe not exactly >state of the art, it's some years old, but a good start for USEAGE. >That's what Charles did for useage-00. I'm less impressed by texts >like RFC 1855, and weird body conventions like tear lines. During the short time that we did discuss USEAGE, we did agree that we should adopt everything in GNKSA, except where it was obviously outmoded, or where we expclictly decided to be different (which we did for some cases and may yet do for more). The current USEAGE draft reflects that. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKT80P057212; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIKT8W4057211; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKT6Bn057205 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3#clerew*man&ac#uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 4586fa10.895f.182 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:04 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBIKT37t021674 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:03 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBIKT3DH021671 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:03 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23907 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 Message-ID: <JAHJs5.FHC@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:04:53 GMT Lines: 728 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: BTW, you spent a lot of time justifying cases which I had already marked with [+1], indicating my agreement (though other might want to disagree, so needed to be made aware of them). >> 1. [-1] (2.2) <path-identity> - Possibility to use a FQDN not resolvable >> in the DNS. >> (This was a suggestion by Harald, & 1 of 2 alternatives in USEPRO) >Intentional, but I don't object to changing it. OK. My vote is still [-1]. >The intentional change here is that I added a different preferred first >option, namely the FQDN of the news server itself. Which I did not quite understand. Did you mean the A or AAAA record? In which case please be explicit. But I would prefer to allow CNAMEs and MXes as well. >> 2. [00] (3.2) <path-identity>s are case-sensitive. >> I was always told that some servers treated them one way and some the >> other, so you could not rely on either. If anything, I would have >> expected case-insensitive (that is what domain-names are, and what >> USEFOR declares <diag-keyword>s are). >Intentional change. >Declaring them case-sensitive is the conservative choice. If you treat >them as case-sensitive and they're actually compared case-insensitively, >everything works fine. The opposite is not true; if your Path identity >varies in case, servers that compare case-sensitively may add incorrect >MISMATCH entries or send you articles that you sent them. OK, I will buy that. >The one exception is if you use a Path header that varies only in case >from another site and assume that it will be compared case-sensitively. I >thought about adding language to specifically say not to do that, but it's >hard to tell a site how to guarantee that ... That's the site's problem :-( . >Anyone doing this is already violating the SHOULD that says path >identities should be in all lowercase... Yes, but please add "(since some current usage treats them case-insensitively)". >> 3. [-1] (3.3.1,3.4,3.9.2) From not omittable in proto-article >> There is existing usage where the injecting agent fills in From header >> (not possible in NNTP, of course) >Intentional change. >What injecting agent supports this? INN apparently (see below). Newsreaders such as rn, trn, nn, and others of that generation had (and still have) the capability to interact directly with the newspool (either on the same host, or more likely NFS mounted from some server) rather than going via NNTP (which did not exist when they were first written). They injected articles by calling a program 'inews' which, in the absence of an explicit From:, assumed the poster was the user who had called 'inews'. I have been reading and posting to Usenet for around 20 years now, and I have never yet configured my newseader with what I wanted in my From: line (except when doing tests with upstart agents such as netscape :-) ). I don't suppose I am the only one. I suspect that 'inews' still exists on a lot of systems. It certainly comes as part of CNews. 'nn' comes with a version of 'inews' that invokes NNTP with a POST command, but it still checks to see whether a From: header has been provided, and goes looking in /etc/passwd if not. And Stan Barber's model implementation of NNTP, when it comes to implementing the POST command, looks for a program 'inews' on the host it is running on (though of course it doesn't expect automatic deduction of From: in that situation). And now I find that INN seems to have an 'inews'. I just found that the University offers an 'inews', and I just posted an article with no From: header using it, and read it back: kiss% telnet wapping 119 Trying 130.88.198.1... Connected to wapping. Escape character is '^]'. 200 cs.man.ac.uk InterNetNews NNRP server INN 2.3.3 ready (posting ok). group man.test 211 1 1680 1681 man.test article 1681 220 1681 <em6777$2am$1@wapping.cs.man.ac.uk> article Path: cs.man.ac.uk!chl From: chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) Subject: testing inews Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:08:25 +0000 (UTC) Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K. Lines: 2 Message-ID: <em6777$2am$1@wapping.cs.man.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: kiss.cs.man.ac.uk X-Trace: wapping.cs.man.ac.uk 1166450905 2390 130.88.192.64 (18 Dec 2006 14:08:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@wapping.cs.man.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:08:25 +0000 (UTC) Xref: cs.man.ac.uk man.test:1681 called /opt/cs/bin/inews from kiss. No From line, but it was from Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> You will see that it has constructed a suitable From header (that is my correct email address when I am inside the Manchester firewall). The wording I wrote in USEPRO was "... (and even From if the particular injecting agent can derive that information from other sources)". That indicates pretty clearly that it would be an unusual possibility, but fine if you happen to have it. It ain't broke ... >.... This doesn't allow for injecting agents that replace the From >header with one containing the authenticated identity of the user, and I >do know of some injecting agents which do this, but I don't think that's >something that we want to support. Sure, and the wording in USEPRO gives no support whatsoever for that practice. >> 5. [-1] (3.3.4) SHOULD trim References to keep <= 998: reduced from MUST. >> This could allow header lines longer than 998 octets, which is known to >> severely impact interoperability. It is not disputed that trimming when >> within the 998 limit is a MAY. >Intentional change, but I'm dithering. One might solve the problem by just saying "fold it so that no header line is more than 998". However, that is not robust enough. There was a case on this list a few years back (yes, that was email, but the problem is the same for both). Some thread got so long as to run into the 998 limit. This is essentially a problem for user agents, not servers, and some people's MUAs were clearly folding the huge References headers in a sensible manner. But it was apparent that other MUAs were first unfolding them, adding the extra entry, and then hopefully refolding them again. And some agent(s) out there was evidently trying to do all that in a buffer of 998, and when it overflowed it just truncated things at that point (or somesuch - I forget the precise details). So you ended up with an invalid References header which was then sent forth to the list. And when that reached my 'nn' (I gateway this list into news), it positively refused to display the article at all (so I could not even see what was wrong). I had to go to my newspool and hand-edit the References header into somethng legal (and chop a lot out of it at the same time), and then it was fine. >> 6. [00] (3.4) Injecting agents reporting rejection to user agent; was >> SHOULD, now merely "encouraged". >> All it needs is an NNTP 44x response or similar. >Intentional change. >What this means is that the Netnews protocol would be placing a >requirement on the transport layer that it have a means of reporting >errors back to a client. I would regard an injecting agent that was so detached from its clients as to be unable to report back to its clients as irretrievably broken, hence making the system hopelessly inadequate for its users (see my remarks in response to your "philosophy" claims). Surely that is just the sort of situation that "SHOULD" is designed for (I agree that if you are communicating with your injecting agent via carrier pigeon, there is no way to get the bird to fly back, so "MUST" would be too strong). Count me as [-1] on this. >> 8. [-1] (3.4) Requirement for injecting agent to forward articles to >> moderator groups reduced from MUST to SHOULD. >> If some small latitude is needed for when the moderated group is in a >> crosspost to some remote and unknown hierarchy, then this should be >> stated explicitly. >Intentional change. >This section says more than just that, and I think the change makes more >sense with more context: > 7. If the Newsgroups header contains one or more moderated groups > and the proto-article does not contain an Approved header field, > the injecting agent SHOULD forward it to a moderator as > specified in Section 3.4.1. If the article cannot be forwarded > to a moderator for some reason, it MUST be rejected. OK, the wording could be better. How about: 7. If the Newsgroups header contains one or more moderated groups and the proto-article does not contain an Approved header field, the injecting agent MUST either forward it to a moderator as specified in Section 3.4.1 or, if that is not possible, reject it. >> 9. [-1] (3.4,3.5) Prepending of <path-identity> to Path by injecting >> agent reduced from MUST to SHOULD. >> I would accept that prepending the <path-diagnostic> POSTED is a SHOULD. >And that's exactly what my language says. Here's the text: > 9. The injecting agent SHOULD then prepend the <path-identity> of > the injecting agent followed by "!.POSTED", optionally "." and > the FQDN or IP address of the source, and a further "!" to the > content of the Path header field. If the injecting agent does > not support the use of <diag-keyword>, it MUST instead prepend > its <path-identity> followed by "!"; one or the other of these > mechanisms MUST be used. OK, so it's a matter of wording. I think something based on my USEPRO would be better, such as 9. The injecting agent MUST then prepend to the content of the Path header field the its own <path-identity> followed by a "!", which SHOULD then be followed by a ".", the <diag-keyword> "POSTED" and a further "!". I just noticed there that you also had an optional FQDN or IP address after the "POSTED". I don't think that was ever the intention of what we discussed during USEFOR, but as a matter of wording it could easily be added to the revised text. >The language is phrased similarly for relaing and serving agents. Yes, similar changes are needed there, and I would suggest looking again at my USEPRO version. The essential difference in those cases is that I described the stuff to be added from left-to-right (which is how I think people will tend to read it), so that you do the obligatory <path-identity> first, and then the various possibilities for the diagnostics. >Changing the <path-diagnostic> from a MUST to a SHOULD is an intentional >change. Yes, I am happy with that (the latest USEPRO left it open for discussion). >> 10. [00] (3.4) Folding of Path header when length becomes excessive >> reduced from SHOULD to MAY. >Intentional change. I am neutral on this one. Let others decide. >> 11. [-1] (3.4) Recommendation that each injecting agent SHOULD use a >> consistent format for Injection-Info removed. >> Otherwise, the task of chasing the bad guys becomes harder. >Intentional change. >I don't see much purpose served by this requirement and the meaning is >very murky to me. USEFOR allows a lot of ways for filling in the Injection-Info. I just don't want to see a single injecting agent, on successive articles, hopping around at random between various forms of posting-host, posting-account and logging-data just in order to force its way past my killfile. >> 12. [-1] (3.5) The significance of "world" and "local" in the >> Distribution header are no longer mentioned. >> We recently took care to reserve these in USEFOR, but that requires >> backup here to ensure the protocol fulfils that promise. >Intentional change. >Most everything useful to be said about "world" and "local" was already >said in USEFOR, and "world" in particular SHOULD NOT be used anyway (as >already stated in USEFOR). Distribution is generally a waste of effort, >and I'd rather keep the rules related to it to a minimum since in practice >few sites are ever going to care. I was more concerned about 'local' than I was about 'world' (which is unnecessary, though it was seen at one time). If you want to rely on the wording in USEFOR, then please add something like: "See [USEPRO] section 3.2.4 for the significance of the reserved <dist-name>s "world" and "local". >> 15. [-1] (3.5) Relaying agent MUST reject any article already already >> sent to it. >Intentional change. >Every relayer I've ever heard of keeps a history file and has to to be >usable in the real world. The protocol breaks down badly if you have >multiple peers and don't do this. This is a core part of the flood-fill >protocol. OK, you have persuaded me. And it is also needed too to check for stale Injection-Dates, which I _did_ have in USEPRO. >> 16. [-1] (3.5) Relaying agent SHOULD deal with cancel message (if it >> chooses to honour it) >> Yes, USEPRO says the same, but I suspect both are wrong, because it is >> serving/storage agents that should be doing this (all a pure relaying >> agent can do is then not to propagate it further). >Not actually a change, but I think this should stay. Here's what it says: > 5. It SHOULD reject any article that matches an already-received > cancel control message or the contents of the Supersedes header > field of an accepted article, provided that the relaying agent > chose (on the basis of local site policy) to honor that cancel > control message or Supersedes header field. Agreed, but my concern was that this was a matter for serving agents rather than for relaying agents. If you aren't actially storing the article, then there is little point in trying to implement cancels. Just relay it on, and let the agents that _do_ store it decide whether to honour the cancel or not. Do current relay-only agents currently bother to do this? >> 20. [00] (3.5) Relaying agent MAY add a new Xref header. >> Why might it want to do that? >Intentional change. >Because the same piece of software also implements a serving agent, which >has to add the Xref header, and the same code path is used for all >articles received by the server whether they are for further relaying or >local serving. Well if that is the case it was nominally the serving function that added the Xref (section 3.6). Now whether such an agent first stores the article and then relays what it has stored, or whether it relays first and then stores after is none of our business. So if you were just trying to cover the first of those cases, where the new Xref might then escape by relaying, then I think it could be worded better. How about: Any Xref header, whether present on input or added by an associated local serving agent, MAY be deleted before relaying. >> 21. [00] (3.6) Storage of control messages in the (pseudo) hierarchy >> control(.*) is a SHOULD. >> Is this any of our business? >Intentional change. See previous discussion. I remain neutral [00]. Alert! Duplicated issue number #21! >> 21. [-1] (3.6) No mention of processing cancel messages by >> serving/storage agents. >The same language is here as for relaying agents, but you may have missed >it because it's combined with another similar point: > 3. It SHOULD reject any article that has already been successfully > sent to it or that matches an already-received and honored cancel > message or Supersedes header field following the same rules as a > relaying agent (Section 3.5). OK, point taken, but it might be better split out. Moreover, the first bit corresponds to step 2 of relaying which is a MUST, as is the matter of stale articles (which is also a history file matter). >Yes, there is no specific mention in the duties section of acting on >control messages for already received messages. This is for the same >reason that there's no specific mention in the duties section of acting on >newgroup, rmgroup, or checkgroups control messages. OK, but people will think it odd that you mention the obscure case of cancels which arise first here, but make to mention of the common case. Perhaps an extra step to say that it SHOULD then process any control messages (including cancels) in acccordance with section 5. >> 22. [00] (3.7) Removed recommendation that reading agent SHOULD have the >> capability to display the raw article 'as received'. >Intentional change. Frank and Forrest have commented on this. Seems controversial. I remain neutral for now. >> 23. [-1] (3.8) Moderators merely "encouraged" (was SHOULD) to retain >> existing <msg-id>. >Intentional change. Seems controversial. >> 24. [00] (3.2.1) Removed provision (MAY) for outgoing gateway to change >> Content-Transfer-Encoding. >I don't consider this to be a change. There's nothing that says that it >*can't* change the Content-Transfer-Encoding,... Sure, but it may be helpful to draw attention to it. I remain [00]. >> 26. [-1] (4.2,4.3) Removed requirement that >> application/news-[groupinfo,checkgroups] MUST NOT be used except with >> relevant control messages. >> Application types are inherently dangerous ... >Intentional change. >I can't think of an example of how application/news-groupinfo could be >dangerous. It's nothing but a bit of text giving a newsgroup name and a >description. In and of itself, it has no force, power, or action >whatsoever. Application types are intended to cause applications to be invoked, with possible side effects. In this case, the side efect is that a line gets added/changed in the Newsgroups file. Fine when it is part of a newgroup message that you intend to honour, but not anywhere else without explicit human intervention. Likewise for application/checkgroups. >Prohibiting use of these media types in all other situations is overly >broad and seems unnecessary to me. If I mail a checkgroups for a >hierarchy to another newsadmin, I don't see any reason why I should be >prohibited from using application/news-checkgroups for that mail message. OK, in that case what you need to say is: This media type is intended to be used in conjunction with the newgroup control message as described in section 5.2.1. It MUST NOT be automatically invoked in any other context without explicit human intervention. and similarly for checkgroups. Alert! Duplicated issue number #27! >> 27. [-1] (5) Nothing stated regarding Newsgroups header of Control >> messages. >> Was SHOULD include the groups affected (& possibly others). Without >> that, control messages won't propagate to the places they are likely to >> be needed. >Intentional change, but after looking at the INN code, I was wrong. OK. >> 28. [00] (5) Subjects starting with 'cmsg' not accompanied by a Control >> header MAY be rejected. >> We discussed this at some stage, but I don't think we ever agreed it one >> way or the other. >Intentional change. Others have commented, so controversial. I remain [00] for now. >> 29. [00] (5.2) Newsgroup-names MUST be checked against disallowed names >> before group control message is honoured. >Intentional change. >It's just as important for checkgroups as it is for newgroup. Point taken. >> 30. [-1] (5.2) Nothing said about content of Approved header. >> Surely, it SHOULD identify the person/identity/role of the issuer, ... >Intentional change. >The content of the Approved header serves no protocol purpose, and USEFOR >already adequately covers the definition of its content. Control message >authorization is done on the basis of the Sender or From header >(preferrably in combination with a digital signature). It asserts that this is an "authorized" message (just what "authorized" means is a separate issue which I shall raise later). As such, it is pretty pointless unless it identifies the entity that is authorized, and all news servers that I know of can be configured with the identity that is to be recognized for each hierarchy. Of course, it really needs to be digitally signed to make it effective, but that again is a separate issue. I think the WG early on took the view that the Approved header would simply fall into disrepute if one could always get away with Approved: kibo and that it therefore needed some firmer language (digitally signed in due course). I remain of that view. >> 31. [-1] (5.2.1) Newgroup message SHOULD include application/group-info. >> Was MUST ... >Intentional change. >Newsgroup descriptions are optional in the protocol and newgroup messages >without descriptions work fine with existing software. OK, if absence means that it just creates a Newsgroups file entry with just the name of the newsgroup, and maybe the TAB, and certainly the " (Moderated)" if needed. Likewise for checkgroups. So you need something like: The application/group-info MUST be included if the group is moderated, in which case it MUST include a <moderation-flag>. For other groups, it MAY be omitted if there is no <newsgroup-description> to be provided. >> 32. [-1] (5.2.1) Newgroup message containing other attachments in >> addition to news-groupinfo to be multipart/related (was >> multipart/mixed). >Unintentional change. OK. >> 34. [00] (5.2.3) Checkgroups SHOULD contain sub-hierarchies excluded by >> chkscope, for backwards compatibility. >> Fine in principle, but maybe not implementable. If de.alt.* were as >> chaotic as alt.* (is it?) there would be no way the admins of de.* could >> include a defnitive list of de.alt.*. So some qualification is needed. >Intentional change. See previous discussion. Then it needs to say: and SHOULD contain ... unless no definitive list for such sub-hierarchies is available. which, for a sufficuently disorganized alt-like hierarchy might well be the case. >> 36. [00] (5.2.3) Body of checkgroups SHOULD be application/checkgroups, >> and otherwise SHOULD treat as if it were. >> Why does that SHOULD differ from the corresponding MUST in newgroups? I >> would have expected "SHOULD ... and otherwise MUST ...". >Intentional change. >What MUST in newgroup? Scanning the body in newgroup messages without a >MIME part is a MAY. It's raised to SHOULD in checkgroups because unlike >for newgroups, this is actually necessary to honor the checkgroups. OK, I seem to have misread a MUST somewhere. Objection withdrawn. >> 37. [00] (5.3) Body of cancel message MAY contain ...explanatory text. >> Was SHOULD. >Intentional change. Frank seems to disagree. So do I, so controversial I think. >> 38. [-1] (5.3) No mention of who should be in From/Sender of cancel >> message. >> Agreed it is not the person who posted the original article. USEPRO says >> it "should" be the person who issued the cancel. That should really be >> "SHOULD". >Intentional change. >The From/Sender of a cancel message is no different in definition than the >From/Sender of any other Netnews message, and as such I think USEFOR >covers the situation sufficiently. I don't see a reason to call special >attention to the fields for cancel messages when cancel messages are no >different than normal articles in this regard. I think the point is that we have made a change from RFC 1036 here. If you reworded it as: Contrary to [RFC1036], the From and Sender fields SHOULD contain the address of the issuer of the cancel, as opposed to that of the poster of the cancelled article. That former requirement only ... then I would be happy. s/SHOULD/should/ if you like. >> 39. [-1] (5.5) The <relayer-name> in ihave and sendme control messages >> is now optional. >> It is required to be present in USEPRO and in Son-of-1036. >Unintentional change. >USEPRO offers two different syntaxes, one of which is marked SHOULD NOT, >and I found that confusing. I tried to combine them and missed this >distinction. (So, actually, it's not required to be present in USEPRO; >it's only a SHOULD NOT to omit it.) I think the syntax you need, if you don't want to do it my way, is Ihave-command = "ihave" Ihave-argument Ihave-argument = 1*WSP *( msg-id 1*WSP ) relayer-name and then say somewhere that , if there is a list of <msg-id>s in the body, there MUST NOT be any <msg-id>s in the Ihave-argument (ditto for sendme). The reason I did it the way I did was because it seemed, even at the time Henry was writing, the practice of putting them in the Ihave-argument was already long dead, and there was little reason even to continue supporting it. >> 40. [-1] (5.5) Format of batched news in response to sendme removed. >> Note that this was a format 'on the wire' and was intended to be sent on >> the same 'wire' as the ihave and sendme messages ... >Intentional change. >Specifying the behavior of the transport layer is out of the scope of this >document. Discussion of the UUCP batch format no more belongs here than >does a discussion of dot-escaping in NNTP. If we are allowed to specify the format of news articles 'on the wire' (which is what USEFOR is all about), then why on earth cannot we specify the format of the only other thing that is ever put on the same wire? It is not the method of transport we are specifying, but the format of the data - otherwise there will be no interoperability. >> 41. [-1] (5.5) The protocol for using the 'to.' newsgroup-name is >> omitted. >> Insofar as this protocol may still occasionally be used, it needs to be >> documented (as with the batch format). >I have: > These control messages are normally sent as point-to-point articles > between two sites and not then sent on to other sites. Newsgroups > beginning with "to." are reserved for such point-to-point > communications. >Son-of has: > It is conventional to reserve newsgroup names beginning with > "to." for test messages sent on an essentially point-to- > point basis (see also the ihave/sendme protocol described in > section 7.2); newsgroup names beginning with "to." SHOULD > not be used for any other purpose. The second (and possibly > later) components of such a name should, together, comprise > the relayer name (see section 5.6) of a relayer. The news- > group exists only at the named relayer and its neighbors. > The neighbors all pass that newsgroup to the named relayer, > while the named relayer does not pass it to anyone. And USEPRO has much the same. I think the minimum that should be said is that, syntactically, this funny newsgroup-name consists of "to." followed by a <relayer-name> (we have already said what <relayer-name>s are), and that control messages using this notation MUST NOT be propagated to any site other than the sending site and the <relayer-name> specified. So we leave it to the implementor to devise how he causes it to propagate to the one site it is allowed to propagate to (but we have already offered a strong hint that this is all designed for use with UUCP). >> 42. [-1] (5.6) Obsolete control messages SHOULD NOT be sent/honoured/ >> Was MUST NOT. Cf the MUST NOT for obsolete headers in USEFOR. >Intentional change. >MUST NOT is unwarranted. Sending them doesn't break anything. Except cause mailbombs, which seems like severe breakage to me. We have forbidden the obsolete headers in USEOR, so why not here? -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKT6NX057202; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIKT61G057200; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKT3FF057180 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster*pop3&clerew^man^ac^uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 4586fa0e.cddf.310 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:02 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBIKT1UU021640 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:01 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBIKT1AV021635 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:01 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23903 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: ASCII (Re: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata) Message-ID: <JAHJ42.EM8@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAC0yG.5r2@clerew.man.ac.uk> <FACC7B0D595A32D4D72AEDF5@[192.168.1.103]> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:50:26 GMT Lines: 64 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <FACC7B0D595A32D4D72AEDF5@[192.168.1.103]> Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes: >--On 15. desember 2006 20:30 +0000 Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> >wrote: >> >>> Implementations predating this standard may not understand MIME >>> headers and expect newsgroup names to be in ASCII. Therefore, >>> regardless of what charset is used, the result of reading each octet >>> of the body and setting bit 8 to zero MUST be a valid message >>> specifying the same newsgroup name [or names for checkgroups]. There >>> is no requirement that the newsgroup description survive this >>> treatment. >The language Russ suggested allows one to evaluate a specific message in a >specific charset against the criterion - for instance, an ISO-2022-JP >message MAY satisfy the criterion, IF the shift to Japanese characters >always occurs in the description, and never in the newsgroup name. OK, I see what the problem is now. Essentially, the property I suggested needs to apply up to the TAB that introduces the description part. After that, we don't care. But anything with a bit8 set in the <newsgroup-name> part will break existing software, because existing software will not be setting that bit to zero before trying to interpret it. So what you say must be more like: The charset that is specified MUST have the property that any valid <newsgroup-name> appearing at the start of each line, and before the TAB character, is represented by the same sequence of octets both in that charset and in ASCII (this does not preclude that, beyond the TAB, there may be some shift character that changes the interpretation of subsequent octets). That also is wordy and might be improved, but at least it makes clear what the issue is. >If we ever want to standardize such a thing, I think the logical thing to >do would be to say that the charset MUST be UTF-8. Yes, but you then lose backward compatibility if you have earlier allowed something else. The wording I suggested above, with s/ASCII/UTF8/ would still work, except I doubt there exists any charset with the necessary property. >But that is not part of any proposal under discussion, so it's pure >speculation at this stage. True, but we should not paint ourselves into a corner, since I regard that development as quite likely, and not so far away. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKT6SJ057201; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIKT6CQ057199; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKT3CD057181 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:29:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3^clerew#man&ac#uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 4586fa0f.173d0.c18 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:03 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBIKT2GS021656 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:02 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBIKT2Of021653 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:29:02 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23905 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 Message-ID: <JAHJHI.F39@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:58:30 GMT Lines: 33 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes: >All the participants who have stated a preference prefer >draft-allbery-usefor-usepro as the basis for the next version of the >USEPRO draft. >Two people have stated opinions that I do not parse as a preference one >way or the other: >- Charles thinks that we need further discussion >- Frank does not agree (or is not sure he agrees?) with Russ' dividing >line between "protocol matters" and "best current practice" matters. >Nevertheless, I believe that it's safe to conclude that the next version >of the draft will be based on draft-allbery-usefor-usepro. I do not see how two people in favour, with one person saying he was against unless the philosophy was changed, plus one asking for more time for discussion (of which there has been hardly any up until the last couple of days) can be interpreted as even a "rough" consensus. Possibly such a consensus might emerge after more discussion, and hopefully some further opinions. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKCULV055472; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:12:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIKCUbL055471; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:12:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org (laweleka.osafoundation.org [204.152.186.98]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKCTDK055464 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:12:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from lisa@osafoundation.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC42142257; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:12:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01258-01; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:12:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.1.222] (ip10.commerce.net [157.22.41.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0EE142253; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:12:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <JABzoz.4Dq@clerew.man.ac.uk> References: <458178C0.30101@alvestrand.no> <JABzoz.4Dq@clerew.man.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5--813014145 Message-Id: <1D33911C-71F5-409A-8D8A-649A701FF6C6@osafoundation.org> Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> Subject: Re: On the issue of publication interval between USEFOR and USEPRO Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:12:26 -0800 To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> --Apple-Mail-5--813014145 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On Dec 15, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Charles Lindsey wrote: > > But whatever, please don't start tinkering with trying to make > USEPRO a > Normative Reference. Why not? It's pretty easy to argue that you need parts of USEPRO in order to be able to generate certain headers defined in USEFOR, without which (if I understand correctly) you don't have a valid article. The Security Considerations issue is an independent reason to have a normative reference. thx, Lisa --Apple-Mail-5--813014145 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 <HTML><BODY style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; = -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Dec 15, 2006, = at 8:02 PM, Charles Lindsey wrote:</DIV><BR = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><P = style=3D"margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; = min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style=3D"margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px = 0.0px"><FONT face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" style=3D"font: 12.0px = Helvetica">But whatever, please don't start tinkering with trying to = make USEPRO a</FONT></P> <P style=3D"margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px = 0.0px"><FONT face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" style=3D"font: 12.0px = Helvetica">Normative Reference.</FONT></P> = </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV>Why not?=A0=A0</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>It's pretty easy to argue = that you need parts of USEPRO in order to be able to generate certain = headers defined in USEFOR, without which (if I understand correctly) you = don't have a valid article.=A0=A0The Security Considerations issue is an = independent reason to have a normative reference.</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>thx,</DIV><DIV>Lisa</DIV></BO= DY></HTML>= --Apple-Mail-5--813014145-- Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKBqOw055422; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:11:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIKBqGv055421; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:11:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (carter-zimmerman.dyn.mit.edu [18.188.3.148]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIKBpSO055412 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:11:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from hartmans@mit.edu) Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id E495CE0050; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:11:44 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf-usefor@imc.org, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Subject: Re: Responses from the USEFOR WG Chairs on IESG DISCUSSes References: <45795ED3.7030402@alvestrand.no> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:11:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <45795ED3.7030402@alvestrand.no> (Harald Alvestrand's message of "Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:47:15 +0100") Message-ID: <tslhcvtklq7.fsf@cz.mit.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> >>>>> "Harald" == Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes: Harald> Greetings, we (the chairs) hvave discussed the IESG Harald> feedback on draft-ietf-usefor-usefor. Harald> There are two DISCUSS comments that we'd like to discuss Harald> further on this document. Harald> Sam Hartman filed this: >> First, the reference to draft-ietf-usefor-usepro needs to be >> normative. I don't think you can construct an article without >> following advice related to path, injection-*, and control from >> that document. Parsing these fields without usepro is >> similarly difficult. Harald> The WG had a debate specifically about whether there Harald> should be a normative reference to USEPRO, and decided Harald> that there should not be one. The WG's belief is that the Harald> -usefor document contains enough information to write Harald> software that parses an Usenet article and says whether or Harald> not it conforms to the format. Harald> We believe that the construction of the content of those Harald> fields is not a normative reference for the format - any Harald> more than the RIR allocation rules for IP addresses forms Harald> a normative reference for the definition of the IP header. I tend to agree with Russ and Forrest here. I don't think you ever want to have people implement usefor without usepro and by not making the reference normative you are sending the mesage that's OK. I do not think I could construct an article given only usefuor; parsing is not enough for interoperability. Harald> If there are specific instances of parsing an Usenet Harald> message (as opposed to acting on the content of a message) Harald> that you think is difficult without USEPRO, we'd like to Harald> have the details, so that we can discuss the specifics. >> We received last call comments about the subsetting of RFC 2822 >> messages. Very late, we realized that the real issue is not >> that these requirements are difficult for new posting agents, >> but that they are difficult when a email message is injected >> into usenet. First, I think more discussion of whether that is >> the right approach for gateways is needed. Harald> It is definitely not the right approach. A normal email Harald> message will not be a valid Usenet message - if only Harald> because it lacks a Path: header and a Newsgroups: header. Harald> The WG has discussed the problem of email-to-news Harald> gateways, and made an explicit decision in at least one Harald> other case to exclude wording that would seem to be Harald> normative for such gateways. We believe that this problem Harald> is out of scope for this document, and is (as we read the Harald> charter) out of scope for the present charter of the Harald> USEFOR WG. Harald> However, we have received a proposal for clarifying text Harald> about the relationship between the USEFOR format and the Harald> mail format; we'll consider this for inclusion at the end Harald> of section 2.1 of the draft: >> This draft places additional restrictions on RFC2822 message >> format rules, in order to be compatible with deployed NetNews >> agents. An entity that generates messages compliant with >> RFC2822 might not always generate messages compliant with this >> specification, although certainly a single code-base can >> generate messages according to both sets of rules if desired. >> Gatewaying between email and news is not part of this >> specification, but we note that such a gateway would in all >> cases have to do more than just copying the message. Ensuring >> that the message satisfies the constraints here would be part >> of the job of such a gateway. Harald> Would this satisfy the DISCUSSant on this point? Yes. Harald> Back to the DISCUSS text: >> Second, regardless of what we say here, it will be reasonably >> common for messages to be injected that do not meet these >> requirements. In the interests of interoperability we need to >> discuss what problems can result and make recommendations for >> liberal receivers that minimize interoperability problems. Harald> The WG discussed the problem of illegal messages and Harald> decided that it was not possible or reasonable to specify Harald> handling of messages that do not conform to this syntax in Harald> the syntax document. This would also violate long-standing Harald> practice in, for instance, RFC 2822. There is a document Harald> on the WG's document list - USEAGE - where such Harald> considerations would be appropriate. (However, note that Harald> the state of the WG is not such that this document will be Harald> finished soon, if at all. See later note.) I guess what I don't understand here is why there is not a sufficient justification for "receivers SHOULD be able to handle messages that are valid RFC 2822 messages but that do not meet all the additional restrictions of this specification." I'm particularly thinking of the generic message header restrictions not the requirements for Newsgroups: and Path:. I understand you cannot do anything with a usenet article without those two headers. There seems to be an interoperability justification for being liberal in this area and I have not seen an argument advanced why a SHOULD would be inappropriate. I've seen arguments about why some implementations might not choose to follow such a SHOULD; while that makes sense, it is not an argument against the SHOULD. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIK3TRG054649; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:03:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBIK3TNJ054648; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:03:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from shellvm.peak.org (shellvm.peak.org [69.59.192.89]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBIK3P1c054599 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:03:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from shellvm.peak.org (centoside.peak.org [127.0.0.1]) by shellvm.peak.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kBIK3Phw026092 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:03:25 -0800 Received: from localhost (stanley@localhost) by shellvm.peak.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id kBIK3DZR026089 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:03:25 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: shellvm.peak.org: stanley owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:03:13 -0800 (PST) From: stanley@peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: rE: Message IDs and moderators Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612181152040.26053@shellvm.peak.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >When sending proto-articles around >to moderators, no Netnews article has yet been created. A proto-article is an article. At the least, it is an RFC2822 message. >An unknown amount >of interaction between the moderator and the poster will occur before the >message is actually sent, Usually "none" covers the amount before the message is injected, but it is sent the second the author sends it. >Again, consider the RISKS digest, which is a very >illustrative corner case of the sort of thing that can happen to a >submission to a moderated group. RISKS Digest is a particularly poor illustration since the Digest is a digest of a MAILING list which is distributed by moderated newsgroup. Further, each article in that group is posted by the RISKS digest author, and the headers of each article clearly represent that. >From the perspective of the protocol, nothing in the protocol breaks if >the moderator changes the message ID. I know this from a practical basis: >many moderators do this now and Usenet still works. Agree. Cancels must be delayed until the article arrives at the poster's site, but if the poster is cancelling an unapproved forgery he'd have to wait anyway. >I'm being a bit hard-nosed here about saying "if you don't like it, maybe >my draft isn't for you" because this is typical of multiple changes I made >to remove remaining best-practice requirements from the protocol draft and >that was one of the significant philosophical differences I have with the >existing USEPRO. We already have a problem with an editor that makes unilateral changes to the draft(s) and ignores consensus. If using this draft means that certain things are not negotiable, then I change my vote in the straw poll. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBHIDlIg083446; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:13:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBHIDlQ5083445; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:13:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBHIDhIG083430 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:13:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E4C9259780; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:10:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25677-02; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:10:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from [172.28.62.90] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED3B25977F; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:10:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:13:34 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>, ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: ASCII (Re: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata) Message-ID: <FACC7B0D595A32D4D72AEDF5@[192.168.1.103]> In-Reply-To: <JAC0yG.5r2@clerew.man.ac.uk> References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAC0yG.5r2@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.6 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by balder-227.proper.com id kBHIDiIG083438 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> --On 15. desember 2006 20:30 +0000 Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Implementations predating this standard may not understand MIME >> headers and expect newsgroup names to be in ASCII. Therefore, >> regardless of what charset is used, the result of reading each octet >> of the body and setting bit 8 to zero MUST be a valid message >> specifying the same newsgroup name [or names for checkgroups]. There >> is no requirement that the newsgroup description survive this >> treatment. > > That seems terribly wordy. Surely all you need is that octets 0-127 (or at > least all those that can occur in newsgroup-names plus TAB) MUST represent > the corresponding ASCII characters. MUST or MUST ALWAYS? The set of useful character sets is quite different in the two cases. The language Russ suggested allows one to evaluate a specific message in a specific charset against the criterion - for instance, an ISO-2022-JP message MAY satisfy the criterion, IF the shift to Japanese characters always occurs in the description, and never in the newsgroup name. > > OTOH, one slight worry. Suppose we later go to newsgroup-names in UTF8 > (following the path now beng blazed by the EAI WG). Would we than have to > say that the charset MUST have UTF-8 as a subset? Or merely that the > charset used must be able to represent all the newsgroup-names in that > checkgroups? One of the beauties of newsgroup-names in UTF8 is that (as we > have already established by trying it with the group dk.test.utf8-æøå) > that existing news servers can cope immediately (user agents would have to > change, of course). If we ever want to standardize such a thing, I think the logical thing to do would be to say that the charset MUST be UTF-8. But that is not part of any proposal under discussion, so it's pure speculation at this stage. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBGER1qA027571; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:27:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBGER1so027570; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:27:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBGER05Y027562 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:27:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GvaV3-0004ZA-Ep for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:26:53 +0100 Received: from du-001-046.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.46]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:26:53 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-046.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:26:53 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Strawman consensus call, mvgroup control message Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:25:18 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 16 Message-ID: <458401CE.1571@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <45780AED.4000509@alvestrand.no> <J9ytKt.Lrr@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45801DE2.4F1C@xyzzy.claranet.de> <JA9oAF.2Dx@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4581F1CC.6A75@xyzzy.claranet.de> <JABtI2.KzM@clerew.man.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-046.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey wrote: >> <http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.discuss/thread=10363/focus=10384> > it looks like Lars has fixed whatever had caused the problem. Yes, that's what he said in article number 10384. > Perhaps you should try clicking on it again. With Ollie's help I found a workaround to get the a link to the wanted thread before he fixed it. I wanted the "clickable" link for somebody else, I rarely use GMaNe's Web interface. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBGEFwnk026298; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:15:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBGEFw2h026297; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:15:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBGEFuhM026290 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:15:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GvaKO-0002XC-Ma for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:15:52 +0100 Received: from du-001-046.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.46]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:15:52 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-046.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:15:52 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: ASCII (was: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:13:06 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 53 Message-ID: <4583FEF1.49A1@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <JAC0yG.5r2@clerew.man.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-046.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey wrote: > That seems terribly wordy. Surely all you need is that octets > 0-127 (or at least all those that can occur in newsgroup-names > plus TAB) MUST represent the corresponding ASCII characters. IIRC we've ruled that out as not good enough, an example is http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/data/trunk/charset/data/xml/glibc-SJIS-2.1.2.xml [...] <validity> <state type="FIRST" next="VALID" s="0" e="7F" max="FFFF"/> <state type="FIRST" next="SECOND" s="81" e="9F" max="FFFF"/> <state type="FIRST" next="VALID" s="A0" e="DF" max="FFFF"/> <state type="FIRST" next="SECOND" s="E0" e="FC" max="FFFF"/> <state type="SECOND" next="VALID" s="40" e="7E" max="FFFF"/> <state type="SECOND" next="VALID" s="80" e="FC" max="FFFF"/> </validity> [...] The s="40" e="7E" in the state type="SECOND" means that the octets 0x40..0x7E can be the second byte (after a FIRST byte 0x81..0x9F or 0xE0..0xFC) of double-byte characters. Apparently Ned's example "euc-jp" doesn't have this problem. Russ' new wording also works for charsets like UTF-7, UTF-1, or the "SJIS" variant shown above - the online version of ICU makes it almost impossible to determine what it really is. --- > OTOH, one slight worry. Suppose we later go to newsgroup-names > in UTF8 (following the path now beng blazed by the EAI WG). And 3977. > Would we than have to say that the charset MUST have UTF-8 > as a subset? Russ' text doesn't use the term "subset". There are only two charsets with UTF-8 as "subset" I'm aware of, the old UTF-8 and CESU. Software expecting UTF-8 would panic as soon as it sees 0xFE, 0xFF, or similar crap. Without explicit charset= the ASCII rule works for ASCII names, for future UTF-8 names an explicit charset= would be required. IMO it's obvious, but that future draft could say that using any charset that's not UTF-8, like Latin-1, is NOT RECOMMENDED if non-ASCII group names are affected. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBG5FoxT078901; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBG5FoAm078899; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBG5Fn87078871 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3$clerew*man^ac&uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45838104.8be3.2aa5 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:48 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBG5FmVv019237 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:48 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBG5Fle6019234 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:47 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23895 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: On the issue of publication interval between USEFOR and USEPRO Message-ID: <JABzoz.4Dq@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <458178C0.30101@alvestrand.no> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:02:59 GMT Lines: 33 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <458178C0.30101@alvestrand.no> Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes: >After reviewing the linkages between the two, I've concluded that >formally and practically, we DO have the option of letting USEFOR be >published at this time (once the IESG is through with it). >In order to have USEFOR be held, we have to enter an explicit request >with the IESG to hold it, and we haven't done that yet. We could simply >not do it. >(This would, of course, mean that if we were to find something in USEPRO >that required a change in USEFOR, we would have to issue a new version >of USEFOR.) >Thoughts? I have always said it is better to hold it back, and I think Forrest agrees. But whatever, please don't start tinkering with trying to make USEPRO a Normative Reference. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBG5Fpeg078920; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBG5FpSU078919; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBG5Fo8F078890 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3^clerew#man#ac&uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45838105.2825.2a7b for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:49 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBG5FnI2019253 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:49 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBG5FmAv019250 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:48 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23897 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata Message-ID: <JAC12z.5xC@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <13D1E93F995F11DE450CDCEB@[192.168.1.103]> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:32:59 GMT Lines: 25 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <13D1E93F995F11DE450CDCEB@[192.168.1.103]> Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes: >--On 14. desember 2006 08:50 -0800 Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote: >> * (Still under discussion.) We may wish to reintroduce the possibility >> of a path-identity that is not a resolvable name in DNS. >Last time I looked at the content of Path: headers, I think that there were >a fair number of names in dotted.name form that were not DNS resolvable. So >banning those names would be a break with existing practice. Or, alternatively, do we think existing practice is flawed (especially if we want to encourage the use of MISMATCH et al)? Whatever we say, it will not change overnight, of course. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBG5FpKp078912; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBG5Fp8S078911; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBG5FoLs078874 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3#clerew^man#ac&uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45838105.2a43.8f5 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:49 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBG5FmXQ019245 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:48 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBG5FmEp019242 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:48 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23896 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Message-ID: <JAC0yG.5r2@clerew.man.ac.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:30:16 GMT Lines: 67 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >As a summary from the recent long threads, here are the changes I believe >should be made to draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 if we go forward with >that document. The first one below has not previously been discussed on >the list. Mostly agreed, but wordings may need tweaking. But there will surely be lots of other changes needed in due course, so no great rush with these. > * USEFOR was changed (correctly, IMO) to allow only WSP between the > arguments of control commands, not FWS. I caught this for newgroup and > rmgroup but missed it for checkgroups and cancel, both of which need > FWS to WSP changes. Yes, I spotted that one too, and it was on my list of minor typos, etc. > * application/news-groupinfo and application/news-checkgroups need > language limiting the selection of character sets. I like Harald's > proposal and would tend towards something like: > Implementations predating this standard may not understand MIME > headers and expect newsgroup names to be in ASCII. Therefore, > regardless of what charset is used, the result of reading each octet > of the body and setting bit 8 to zero MUST be a valid message > specifying the same newsgroup name [or names for checkgroups]. There > is no requirement that the newsgroup description survive this > treatment. That seems terribly wordy. Surely all you need is that octets 0-127 (or at least all those that can occur in newsgroup-names plus TAB) MUST represent the corresponding ASCII characters. OTOH, one slight worry. Suppose we later go to newsgroup-names in UTF8 (following the path now beng blazed by the EAI WG). Would we than have to say that the charset MUST have UTF-8 as a subset? Or merely that the charset used must be able to represent all the newsgroup-names in that checkgroups? One of the beauties of newsgroup-names in UTF8 is that (as we have already established by trying it with the group dk.test.utf8-æøå) that existing news servers can cope immediately (user agents would have to change, of course). But if checkstatus was allowed to show "dk.test.utf8-æøå" in either UTF-8 or in Iso-8859-1, would checkstatus still work on existing news servers (it probably would in the UTF-8 case)? > * A separate sub-section of duties, before the individual agent duties > and possibly as part of the same sub-section as the identity > discussion, should be added specifying Path header construction. The > Path header example should be moved to be a sub-section of that > section. That section can lay out all the construction requirements > for the Path header field and just be referred to by the individual > duties sections. Yes, that might be good. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBG5Foc2078900; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBG5FoFr078893; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBG5Fmeh078870 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3$clerew^man&ac*uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45838104.12587.e2 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:48 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBG5FlUF019229 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:47 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBG5FlqY019226 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:47 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23894 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 Message-ID: <JABzHw.44s@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <458220B1.4030001@mibsoftware.com> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:58:44 GMT Lines: 94 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <458220B1.4030001@mibsoftware.com> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> writes: >Wow, a pile of things in one message is really hard to discuss. Sure it was a big list. But we need to see which items on it are going to cause disagreement, and then we can start separate threads/issues on those ones. A lot of them will turn out to be minor misunderstandings, or matters of wording, etc. >>>>23. [-1] (3.8) Moderators merely "encouraged" (was SHOULD) to retain >>>>existing <msg-id>. >> >> >>>>That could cause problems if the original poster later wants to cancel >>>>it, or if he had forwarded it from some other source. >> >> >>>Intentional change. >I'm on the fence here. The problems with cancels on USENET are not solvable by >message ID magic. Cancel locks are a better way. (Better is a relative term.) The WG looked at Cancel Locks once, and decided they would not work without corresponding changes in other places. So it needs that "Security Extension" which we have often mentioned and could, in theory, even get arund to one day :-) . >The protocol issue is clear: is a message with the added approved header the >same as the original message? I say it isn't and retaining the message ID is a >hack that sort of makes cancels sort of maybe work, sometimes. I think it is essentially the same message. You do not need to worry about the precise identity of a message until it is finally let loose on Usenet. Generally speaking, small additions or changes to headers do not create a 'different' message; even adding stupid warnings about the viruses you didn't find to the end of the body doesn't make it different. RFC 2822 has some useful words on this and, modulo a slightly different set of headers, works also for news. >> >> Adding a note (like the "IESG notes" in RFCs) is already at the border. >> Truncating articles (and the note explaining how that was done) is also >> at the border (and IMHO at the wrong side of this border). But without >> some clear published rules for the relevant NG warning posters how their >> articles might be mutilated the default ought to be SHOULD NOT. >And the underlying principle is that if you alter the body the message is >different and the ID should change. Only if you cause the essential "meaning" of the message to change. Which "most" body changes would do, and even changes of "Subject". >I also wonder if the post was to more than one moderated group, are there >situations where retaining the message ID fails, because some gateway sees it in >history and assumes a loop? Email message IDs are not unique, but.... There will always be some bizarre borderline cases, which is why it is SHOULD rather than MUST. >I recall the WG spent a lot of time on this, and "Re:." The WG certainly spent a lot of time on "Re:", and a very delicate compromise was reached. I am relieved to see that Russ has left it strictly alone. But "cmsg" is now pretty well dead on the real Usenet, which is why simply confirming its death is probably enough. I am with Frank on this one, that the principle of "don't tinker with Subject" should be regarded as more important here. >Let's be clear on the reason that is a MAY. Subject is unstructured, and admins >should be aware they have the authority to /dev/null any article for any reason, >especially ones that they think could cause problems. >That is not why I think this deserves a MAY. >That MAY is there to warn User-Agent implementors that putting cmsg starting >a subject line could lead to poor propagation. Don't do it. Eh? How can rejecting an article cause it to propagate worse? -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBG5Fo6Z078898; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBG5FoSq078896; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBG5FmQU078866 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster*pop3#clerew^man$ac^uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45838103.a35a.10d for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:47 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBG5FkMd019221 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:46 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBG5Fkgu019218 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:46 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23893 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 Message-ID: <JAByD4.2xF@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <871wn27xoz.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:34:16 GMT Lines: 92 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <871wn27xoz.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: >> Russ Allbery wrote: >>> Intentional change. >>> As mentioned in one of my earlier messages about general philosophy, I >>> removed all requirements placed on agents that are not limited in >>> practice by the protocol. Moderators are given the proto-article and >>> are free to do anything they wish with it >> They're free to approve and inject / forward it, or to reject it. But >> they are NOT free to manipulate the Message-ID. They can add one if >> it's missing, your "proto-article" analogy is fine. They are not free >> to do whatever they wish. >This clearly isn't true, as moderators have been changing the message ID >routinely for years and continue to do so as I write this. They are >entirely free to do so; nothing stops them and Usenet does not break as a >result. AFAIR, that bit in USEPRO was put in after some discussion about the habit of moderators changing Message-IDs (apparently Kent Landfield's FAQ encourages it :-( ); we decided we didn't like the practice and wanted it to stop. Hence the wording that appeared in USEPRO. Of course, there may be some bizarre situations (including when he has significantly changed the text) where the moderator really has to change it, hence it was SHOULD rather than MUST. As to whether things break, they can certainly become highly inconvenient. If the OP has also submitted it to some mailing list, for example, there is the possibility that the two versions may come together again at some point, and the same message-id is an immediate indication that they are the same message. Also, as someone has mentioned, users like to keep track of, or be alerted to, followups of their own articles. >> Alternative: Move the complete _concept_ of moderated NGs to USEAGe, >> anything, not only 3.8. >Extremely strongly opposed. That would be a show-stopper for me. +1 to that. >This is a fundamental philosophical difference about what belongs in the >protocol specification. If the working group feels that these sorts of >restrictions on the actions of a moderator belong in USEPRO rather than in >a best practices document, you should probably chose to move forward with >a different draft than mine. Yes, I think the philosophical difference is the real issue we need to address. Views on what IETF standards may legitimately say cover a wide range, and Russ's position is fairly far towards one end of a this continuum. Essentially, he implies that if nothing breaks, then it doesn't belong in the standard. OK, that is clearly a gross over-simplification, so don't take it too literally. I tried to take a more relaxed view in USEPRO (and the WG was often pressing me in that direction). Essentially, if some feature, whilst not actually causing stuff to get lost, makes life terribly difficult for everyone, then it is better for the standard to disallow it. Security issues are sometimes an example of this. So are things like Trace Headers. If Received headers were entirely omitted from RFC 282[12], the mail would still get through. But sorting out all the awkward things that inevitbly go wrong would be hellishly difficult without them. However, it is not all as Black and White as the above might suggest, and I am not sure we should be addressing this particular issues just yet. I have lots of differences between USEPRO and RUSPRO that I want to raise sooner of later, but raising them all at once would just give this group a huge information overload. So I chose to raise the items related to protocol changes first, and I think we should mainly stick to those for the moment. Ultimately, the document we finally produce will have lots of input from USEPRO and lots off input from RUSSPRO. Whether it is produced by starting from RUSSPRO and putting some things back, or by starting with USEPRO and taking things out, is less important than ensuring that we converge on the correct document eventually. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBG5Fobr078897; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBG5FocK078895; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBG5Fmds078865 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:15:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3$clerew*man^ac$uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45838103.7a56.136 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:47 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBG5FkEp019213 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:46 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBG5FjhX019210 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:15:45 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23892 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Strawman consensus call, mvgroup control message Message-ID: <JABtI2.KzM@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <45780AED.4000509@alvestrand.no> <J9ytKt.Lrr@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45801DE2.4F1C@xyzzy.claranet.de> <JA9oAF.2Dx@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4581F1CC.6A75@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:49:14 GMT Lines: 27 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <4581F1CC.6A75@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: > >> Can you please give us some more details of the things that went wrong? >It's better if you judge it for yourself, I'm not sure that I understood >it correctly. It's a short thread (with a solution of "lost aliases"): ><http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.discuss/thread=10363/focus=10384> OK, I looked at that thread, and am not quite sure what it was all about. However, the link that you claimed to have clicked on and not got what you expected worked for me when I tried it. So it looks like Lars has fixed whatever had caused the problem. Perhaps you should try clicking on it again. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBFBrYku073866; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:53:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBFBrYnC073865; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:53:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBFBrX77073858 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:53:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GvBcu-0001IZ-10 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:53:20 +0100 Received: from d254024.dialin.hansenet.de ([80.171.254.24]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:53:20 +0100 Received: from nobody by d254024.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:53:20 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:51:27 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 21 Message-ID: <45828C3F.644C@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <458220B1.4030001@mibsoftware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: d254024.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: [explanation of cancel] >> It MUST contain an explanation if it's not sent by the original poster, >> for admin cancels and spam cancels. MAY is not good enough, unless you >> intend to discuss such details in USEPRO. Maybe we should do this (?) > Frank, do you have any way to justify your opinion of MUSTard here? > What breaks? It's hard to decide what's a tolerated spam-cancel or a good admin-cancel without some hint in the body. It "breaks" in a certain sense as soon as admins decide to ignore cancels, when figuring out good vs. rogue takes too much of their time after complaints. For some 1st party cancels a hint can be also important, if the article was posted by somebody else forging the "From". Not enough for a MUST, but all in all more than only an option, recommending a hint makes sense. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBFBXjpi071544; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:33:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBFBXj2d071543; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:33:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBFBXhBj071529 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:33:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GvBJX-0004Tf-JK for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:33:20 +0100 Received: from d254024.dialin.hansenet.de ([80.171.254.24]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:33:19 +0100 Received: from nobody by d254024.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:33:19 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:31:47 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 44 Message-ID: <458287A3.7E73@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <871wn27xoz.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4582015B.18F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <458229A9.4010102@mibsoftware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: d254024.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > And if your moderator is a sadist, then an RFC isn't going to help. The four times I tried to post articles in Usenet groups with human moderators all failed. Based on that somewhat limited experience the one moderator I trust - after reading the FAQ several times and testing it - is the modbot protecting nanas. A modbot is a piece of software, an RFC can state what it's expected to do. > RFCs are an invitation to cooperate. Period. The MUST and MUST NOT > wording looks stern, but remains nothing more than an invitation to > cooperate. They're often used as reference for decisions like "observed behaviour A is right, not A is wrong, so fix it". Of course you can ignore some MUSTs, but... > "non-compliance breaks something." > IMHO, the GNKSA approach is probably better to address your concerns. It's limited to newsreaders, otherwise I liked it. Maybe not exactly state of the art, it's some years old, but a good start for USEAGE. That's what Charles did for useage-00. I'm less impressed by texts like RFC 1855, and weird body conventions like tear lines. > The world suffers from the lack of a specification of how to get > articles from place to place correctly today. For moderated NGs the modbot or moderator is one of these places. It has duties, and some are critical. Some UAs allow to "post + mail", it could have strange effects if something in that procedure makes up its own Message-IDs. Articles can be x-posted in more than one moderated NG. It won't do if the 1st moderator approves Message-ID <x1>, and the 2nd moderator approves the article replacing the Message-ID by <x2>, the cancelbot of the 1st moderator could kill the unknown <x2>. The Message-ID is essential for Netnews, also in moderated groups. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF8xbVq054369; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:59:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBF8xb9a054368; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:59:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF8xahI054361 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:59:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D1725977D for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:56:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21886-09 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:56:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF6F25977B for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:56:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <458263F0.2040903@alvestrand.no> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:59:28 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 right and publish it as draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> All the participants who have stated a preference prefer draft-allbery-usefor-usepro as the basis for the next version of the USEPRO draft. Two people have stated opinions that I do not parse as a preference one way or the other: - Charles thinks that we need further discussion - Frank does not agree (or is not sure he agrees?) with Russ' dividing line between "protocol matters" and "best current practice" matters. Nevertheless, I believe that it's safe to conclude that the next version of the draft will be based on draft-allbery-usefor-usepro. Harald Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF8l5Ut053504; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:47:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBF8l5wP053503; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:47:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF8l42j053497 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:47:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB3525977D; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:43:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21886-02; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:43:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6871F25977B; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:43:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45826102.6000107@alvestrand.no> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:46:58 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <871wn27xoz.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4582015B.18F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <4582015B.18F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann wrote: > Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> Philosophical difference. If the working group wishes to take this >> approach to a protocol specification, you should not use my draft. >> > > Okay, apparently I'm better off with USEPRO. I dislike arbitrariness > of software or moderators hurting the weakest part of the system, the > normal posters and users. > > I think (technical opinion, not chair hat) that just like USEFOR deals with the format and ignores the protocol, USEPRO should deal with the protocol and ignore the parts that can only be specified as conventions. Frank, you may be best served by jumping onto the long-languishing draft for USEAGE. Harald Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF5ViUn035015; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:31:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBF5ViL5035014; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:31:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF5VhUh035008 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:31:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 6778F4C1E5 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:31:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371C94C15D for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:31:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1DF9CE7B81; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:31:43 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message IDs and moderators In-Reply-To: <458230DD.1030104@mibsoftware.com> (Forrest J. Cavalier, III's message of "Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:21:33 -0500") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <458220B1.4030001@mibsoftware.com> <87slfh7otm.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> <458230DD.1030104@mibsoftware.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:31:43 -0800 Message-ID: <87k60t7mio.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Forrest J Cavalier <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> writes: > Russ and I are agreeing for different reasons. It is hard to know you > have covered all the cases for retaining or changing it. > I understand it isn't a netnews article "yet". Even if it isn't a > netnews article, it is an RFC2822 message. Message-ID means > something.... I don't have much to add here (I think you raise good points) except to note that if one uses method (a) of forwarding messages to a moderator (or if one just puts the message into a local database that the moderator then has access to, as is explicitly permitted in my document), the proto-article is encapsulated and therefore the mail message identifier (if any) is irrelevant from a Netnews perspective. We only run into potential issues with the interaction between the mail message identifier and the Netnews message identifier when moderation forwarding is done by pretending the proto-article is an e-mail message and dropping it into the mail with a minimum of gatewaying, forcing the moderator to then convert it back to a proto-article before dealing with it. I think we're all agreed that this is a wart on the protocol and it would be great to get rid of it if we can finesse the transition issues. I'm personally inclined to try to pretend that this ugly bit of gatewaying involved in the current common method of forwarding messages to moderators doesn't exist when it comes to considering the disposition of the message identifier, since otherwise we end up with different rules depending on how the message is forwarded to the moderator and that feels even uglier and even harder to explain. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF5LVLL033977; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:21:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBF5LVOZ033976; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:21:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from relay00.pair.com (relay00.pair.com [209.68.5.9]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id kBF5LUtt033970 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:21:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mibsoft@mibsoftware.com) Received: (qmail 50779 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2006 05:21:29 -0000 Received: from 216.37.253.40 (HELO ?192.168.2.11?) (216.37.253.40) by relay00.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Dec 2006 05:21:29 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 216.37.253.40 Message-ID: <458230DD.1030104@mibsoftware.com> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:21:33 -0500 From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message IDs and moderators References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <458220B1.4030001@mibsoftware.com> <87slfh7otm.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87slfh7otm.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > Forrest J Cavalier <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> writes: >>The protocol issue is clear: is a message with the added approved >>header the same as the original message? I say it isn't and retaining >>the message ID is a hack that sort of makes cancels sort of maybe work, >>sometimes. > > > This isn't actually the direction at which I'm coming to this. The issue > that you're concerned with (keeping the message ID the same for the same > message) is one that I think only applies after the message becomes a real > article and is present on the network. When sending proto-articles around > to moderators, no Netnews article has yet been created. An unknown amount > of interaction between the moderator and the poster will occur before the > message is actually sent, and indeed the poster's message may never be > posted in that form. Again, consider the RISKS digest, which is a very > illustrative corner case of the sort of thing that can happen to a > submission to a moderated group. (The protocol needs to cover *every* use > of Netnews, not just the common case.) Russ and I are agreeing for different reasons. It is hard to know you have covered all the cases for retaining or changing it. I understand it isn't a netnews article "yet". Even if it isn't a netnews article, it is an RFC2822 message. Message-ID means something.... The "Message-ID:" field provides a unique message identifier that refers to a particular version of a particular message. The uniqueness of the message identifier is guaranteed by the host that generates it (see below). This message identifier is intended to be machine readable and not necessarily meaningful to humans. A message identifier pertains to exactly one instantiation of a particular message; subsequent revisions to the message each receive new message identifiers. Note: There are many instances when messages are "changed", but those changes do not constitute a new instantiation of that message, and therefore the message would not get a new message identifier. For example, when messages are introduced into the transport system, they are often prepended with additional header fields such as trace fields (described in section 3.6.7) and resent fields (described in section 3.6.6). The addition of such header fields does not change the identity of the message and therefore the original "Message-ID:" field is retained. In all cases, it is the meaning that the sender of the message wishes to convey (i.e., whether this is the same message or a different message) that determines whether or not the "Message-ID:" field changes, not any particular syntactic difference that appears (or does not appear) in the message. I'm not an email RFC expert, by any means. So there may be more relevant text. But is a proto-article and the version with an Approved header field the "same message?" Certainly a server is going to treat those two differently. If a server gets the version without the Approved header, should it cache the message-ID in History as a "reject"? No. But why? Only because we can reason that would be detrimental. (Is there advice on this in any of the RFCs? I find that caching rejects is more art than science.) > > So, I think the message ID can be kept the same or changed from a protocol > level and neither decision violates the protocol. In essence, the article > is still being prepared up until the point where the moderator injects it. > > I made this change instead as part of a number of similar changes aimed at > providing a sharp distinction between the Netnews *protocol* and Usenet > *best practice*, basically flushing the remaining bits of the latter out > of the protocol specification and leaving them for USEAGE. > >>From the perspective of the protocol, nothing in the protocol breaks if > the moderator changes the message ID. I know this from a practical basis: > many moderators do this now and Usenet still works. I know this from a > theoretical basis: there is no guarantee in the protocol specification > which is violated by this. Until the moderator injects the message, only > one copy of that proto-article exists (well, unless the user injected it > multiple times, but if the moderation status is consistent that just means > the moderator gets multiple copies and if it isn't, behavior is not going > to be specifiable anyway). It's not public until the moderator injects > it, so it doesn't matter what message ID it has from a Netnews > perspective. > > As a matter of best practice, absolutely, the moderator should retain the > message ID, even if they edit the post, add notes, or do anything else > they're allowed to do by the protocol. They should do this because it > enables a variety of other best-practice behavior, such as allowing users > to score up their own articles or replies to their own articles easily > based on message ID patterns. However, all of the reasons why they should > do this are best practice questions, and therefore so is the > recommendation. There is nothing in the *protocol* that makes doing this > important, and hence it's not a protocol issue. > > I'll be right there with you arguing for it in USEAGE. > > To require it in the protocol, it has to matter for the protocol. Since > there's nothing in the protocol that restricts cancel messages to the > message IDs that one generates locally, or that requires a poster know or > be able to predict the message ID of their article for any reason, I > cannot justify a protocol requirement. > > I'm being a bit hard-nosed here about saying "if you don't like it, maybe > my draft isn't for you" because this is typical of multiple changes I made > to remove remaining best-practice requirements from the protocol draft and > that was one of the significant philosophical differences I have with the > existing USEPRO. I just wanted to make sure everyone realized that > removing these sorts of requirements was one of the core points of my > rewrite, not just a side issue, so if you disagree with this you may not > agree with the philosophy that I used to make other changes and wording > decisions throughout the draft. > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF4olQO030009; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:50:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBF4olMA030008; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:50:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from relay00.pair.com (relay00.pair.com [209.68.5.9]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id kBF4ok8x030002 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:50:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mibsoft@mibsoftware.com) Received: (qmail 41863 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2006 04:50:45 -0000 Received: from 216.37.253.40 (HELO ?192.168.2.11?) (216.37.253.40) by relay00.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Dec 2006 04:50:45 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 216.37.253.40 Message-ID: <458229A9.4010102@mibsoftware.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:50:49 -0500 From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <871wn27xoz.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4582015B.18F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <4582015B.18F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann wrote: > Russ Allbery wrote: > > >>Philosophical difference. If the working group wishes to take this >>approach to a protocol specification, you should not use my draft. > > > Okay, apparently I'm better off with USEPRO. I dislike arbitrariness > of software or moderators hurting the weakest part of the system, the > normal posters and users. If a User-agent developer can't see how to help normal posters and users, then an RFC isn't going to help. And if your moderator is a sadist, then an RFC isn't going to help. RFCs are an invitation to cooperate. Period. The MUST and MUST NOT wording looks stern, but remains nothing more than an invitation to cooperate. RFC MUST and MUST NOT are not commands, they are statements of specification. It is IETF shorthand for "non-compliance breaks something." Maybe the world needs an RFC like USEAGE. I don't really care. (IMHO, the GNKSA approach is probably better to address your concerns.) The world suffers from the lack of a specification of how to get articles from place to place correctly today. That's the need for RUSSPRO. We don't want GNKSA-type stuff in RUSSPRO, because bulky specs are not nearly as useful as concise ones. And even if some of that is there, you can't use what you like to call RFC2119 MUSTard to get what you want. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF4fx4X029325; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:41:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBF4fxWi029324; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:41:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF4fwiN029318 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:41:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 563B04C3F6 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:41:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1809B4C434 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:41:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 02F61E7B19; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:41:57 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Message IDs and moderators (was: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00) In-Reply-To: <458220B1.4030001@mibsoftware.com> (Forrest J. Cavalier, III's message of "Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:12:33 -0500") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <458220B1.4030001@mibsoftware.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:41:57 -0800 Message-ID: <87slfh7otm.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Forrest J Cavalier <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> writes: > Wow, a pile of things in one message is really hard to discuss. Yeah, sorry about that. I thought about breaking up my 700+ line response into separate messages and just couldn't muster the effort. >>>> 23. [-1] (3.8) Moderators merely "encouraged" (was SHOULD) to retain >>>> existing <msg-id>. >>>> That could cause problems if the original poster later wants to >>>> cancel it, or if he had forwarded it from some other source. >>> Intentional change. > I'm on the fence here. The problems with cancels on USENET are not > solvable by message ID magic. Cancel locks are a better way. (Better > is a relative term.) > The protocol issue is clear: is a message with the added approved > header the same as the original message? I say it isn't and retaining > the message ID is a hack that sort of makes cancels sort of maybe work, > sometimes. This isn't actually the direction at which I'm coming to this. The issue that you're concerned with (keeping the message ID the same for the same message) is one that I think only applies after the message becomes a real article and is present on the network. When sending proto-articles around to moderators, no Netnews article has yet been created. An unknown amount of interaction between the moderator and the poster will occur before the message is actually sent, and indeed the poster's message may never be posted in that form. Again, consider the RISKS digest, which is a very illustrative corner case of the sort of thing that can happen to a submission to a moderated group. (The protocol needs to cover *every* use of Netnews, not just the common case.) So, I think the message ID can be kept the same or changed from a protocol level and neither decision violates the protocol. In essence, the article is still being prepared up until the point where the moderator injects it. I made this change instead as part of a number of similar changes aimed at providing a sharp distinction between the Netnews *protocol* and Usenet *best practice*, basically flushing the remaining bits of the latter out of the protocol specification and leaving them for USEAGE. >From the perspective of the protocol, nothing in the protocol breaks if the moderator changes the message ID. I know this from a practical basis: many moderators do this now and Usenet still works. I know this from a theoretical basis: there is no guarantee in the protocol specification which is violated by this. Until the moderator injects the message, only one copy of that proto-article exists (well, unless the user injected it multiple times, but if the moderation status is consistent that just means the moderator gets multiple copies and if it isn't, behavior is not going to be specifiable anyway). It's not public until the moderator injects it, so it doesn't matter what message ID it has from a Netnews perspective. As a matter of best practice, absolutely, the moderator should retain the message ID, even if they edit the post, add notes, or do anything else they're allowed to do by the protocol. They should do this because it enables a variety of other best-practice behavior, such as allowing users to score up their own articles or replies to their own articles easily based on message ID patterns. However, all of the reasons why they should do this are best practice questions, and therefore so is the recommendation. There is nothing in the *protocol* that makes doing this important, and hence it's not a protocol issue. I'll be right there with you arguing for it in USEAGE. To require it in the protocol, it has to matter for the protocol. Since there's nothing in the protocol that restricts cancel messages to the message IDs that one generates locally, or that requires a poster know or be able to predict the message ID of their article for any reason, I cannot justify a protocol requirement. I'm being a bit hard-nosed here about saying "if you don't like it, maybe my draft isn't for you" because this is typical of multiple changes I made to remove remaining best-practice requirements from the protocol draft and that was one of the significant philosophical differences I have with the existing USEPRO. I just wanted to make sure everyone realized that removing these sorts of requirements was one of the core points of my rewrite, not just a side issue, so if you disagree with this you may not agree with the philosophy that I used to make other changes and wording decisions throughout the draft. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF4CWYD024987; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:12:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBF4CWiT024986; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:12:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from relay00.pair.com (relay00.pair.com [209.68.5.9]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id kBF4CURm024979 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:12:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mibsoft@mibsoftware.com) Received: (qmail 31495 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2006 04:12:29 -0000 Received: from 216.37.253.40 (HELO ?192.168.2.11?) (216.37.253.40) by relay00.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Dec 2006 04:12:29 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 216.37.253.40 Message-ID: <458220B1.4030001@mibsoftware.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:12:33 -0500 From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Wow, a pile of things in one message is really hard to discuss. Should all be split to separate topics. Sigh. I think Russ gets it right extremely often. RFC 2119 language is what MUST and MUST NOT be done avoid things breaking, what SHOULD be done unless you have a really good reason, and to let people know how they MAY embellish. I know raw wishes and opinion have carried the WG in the past, but there is a reason USEAGE exists: to collect the rest of the opinions. Inline responses below. (Liberal cutting with the intent to provide context, not modify your comments...) Frank Ellermann wrote: > Russ Allbery wrote: > > >>Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > > > Thanks for the interesting diff list. > > >>>22. [00] (3.7) Removed recommendation that reading agent SHOULD have the >>>capability to display the raw article 'as received'. > > >>Intentional change. Display of articles is totally outside the scope of the article transfer protocol. USEPRO scope is end-to-end from agent to agent, not end-to-end from keyboard to eyeball. > > > IMO mail and news desperately need manual intervention in the case of > errors, they're not designed to run "unattended" in the case of errors. I'm with you 100% here, Frank, but it isn't protocol. Put it in USEAGE. > >>>23. [-1] (3.8) Moderators merely "encouraged" (was SHOULD) to retain >>>existing <msg-id>. > > >>>That could cause problems if the original poster later wants to cancel >>>it, or if he had forwarded it from some other source. > > >>Intentional change. I'm on the fence here. The problems with cancels on USENET are not solvable by message ID magic. Cancel locks are a better way. (Better is a relative term.) The protocol issue is clear: is a message with the added approved header the same as the original message? I say it isn't and retaining the message ID is a hack that sort of makes cancels sort of maybe work, sometimes. > > Adding a note (like the "IESG notes" in RFCs) is already at the border. > Truncating articles (and the note explaining how that was done) is also > at the border (and IMHO at the wrong side of this border). But without > some clear published rules for the relevant NG warning posters how their > articles might be mutilated the default ought to be SHOULD NOT. And the underlying principle is that if you alter the body the message is different and the ID should change. Now, what if you alter the From and the Subject header fields? Different message. Add or Alter the Approved header field? Not clear. What is clear is that the message is going to be treated totally differently when received. It is treated as a different message. (This distinguishes the case from just adding another Received header, or Path identity.) I also wonder if the post was to more than one moderated group, are there situations where retaining the message ID fails, because some gateway sees it in history and assumes a loop? Email message IDs are not unique, but.... > > >>>28. [00] (5) Subjects starting with 'cmsg' not accompanied by a Control >>>header MAY be rejected. > > >>>We discussed this at some stage, but I don't think we ever agreed it one >>>way or the other. I recall the WG spent a lot of time on this, and "Re:." Let's be clear on the reason that is a MAY. Subject is unstructured, and admins should be aware they have the authority to /dev/null any article for any reason, especially ones that they think could cause problems. That is not why I think this deserves a MAY. That MAY is there to warn User-Agent implementors that putting cmsg starting a subject line could lead to poor propagation. Don't do it. Why not write it as "User Agents SHOULD NOT" then? Because then you need a SHOULD NOT and a MAY in order to be clear. Stick with the MAY, and the SHOULD NOT is implied. Nice and concise. > >>>37. [00] (5.3) Body of cancel message MAY contain ...explanatory text. >>>Was SHOULD. > > >>Intentional change. > > >>The body text serves no protocol purpose and therefore shouldn't be >>subject to a protocol constraint. > > > It MUST contain an explanation if it's not sent by the original poster, > for admin cancels and spam cancels. MAY is not good enough, unless you > intend to discuss such details in USEPRO. Maybe we should do this (?) Frank, do you have any way to justify your opinion of MUSTard here? What breaks? > > Frank > > > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF1x91l010293; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:59:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBF1x9Sb010292; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:59:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF1x718010286 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:59:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Gv2Lq-0008MK-3L for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:59:06 +0100 Received: from d255034.dialin.hansenet.de ([80.171.255.34]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:59:06 +0100 Received: from nobody by d255034.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:59:06 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:58:51 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 11 Message-ID: <4582015B.18F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <871wn27xoz.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: d255034.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > Philosophical difference. If the working group wishes to take this > approach to a protocol specification, you should not use my draft. Okay, apparently I'm better off with USEPRO. I dislike arbitrariness of software or moderators hurting the weakest part of the system, the normal posters and users. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF1UNRJ006159; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:30:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBF1UN6Z006158; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:30:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF1UKGO006149 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:30:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 46B2A4CC6B for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EC34CC63 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1099DE7B11; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:30:20 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 In-Reply-To: <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:30:36 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:30:20 -0800 Message-ID: <871wn27xoz.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Intentional change. >> As mentioned in one of my earlier messages about general philosophy, I >> removed all requirements placed on agents that are not limited in >> practice by the protocol. Moderators are given the proto-article and >> are free to do anything they wish with it > They're free to approve and inject / forward it, or to reject it. But > they are NOT free to manipulate the Message-ID. They can add one if > it's missing, your "proto-article" analogy is fine. They are not free > to do whatever they wish. This clearly isn't true, as moderators have been changing the message ID routinely for years and continue to do so as I write this. They are entirely free to do so; nothing stops them and Usenet does not break as a result. I believe that what my draft says is the correct statement for the protocol to make. > Of course there is, users will see if their article was forged or > manipulated, and report that. They won't post in the NG of an abusive > moderator. Admins can remove the NGs from their server. This behavior is not considered abusive and only rarely draws any sort of complaint. > Alternative: Move the complete _concept_ of moderated NGs to USEAGe, > anything, not only 3.8. Extremely strongly opposed. That would be a show-stopper for me. > Adding a note (like the "IESG notes" in RFCs) is already at the border. > Truncating articles (and the note explaining how that was done) is also > at the border (and IMHO at the wrong side of this border). But without > some clear published rules for the relevant NG warning posters how their > articles might be mutilated the default ought to be SHOULD NOT. This is a fundamental philosophical difference about what belongs in the protocol specification. If the working group feels that these sorts of restrictions on the actions of a moderator belong in USEPRO rather than in a best practices document, you should probably chose to move forward with a different draft than mine. >>> 28. [00] (5) Subjects starting with 'cmsg' not accompanied by a >>> Control header MAY be rejected. >>> We discussed this at some stage, but I don't think we ever agreed it one >>> way or the other. >> Intentional change. > USEFOR is now tuned to "don't do odd things with Subject: cmsg", after > years of discussions, this MAY has to be a MUST NOT. It has to be noted > as new requirement, a radical change from 1036. That was a WG > consensus, I didn't like it, but the alternative "structured subject" > was admittedly worse. Please stick to it, news servers have no business > to look into the subject at all, end of story. I don't agree that this was the working group consensus. I stand by what my draft says, which is also what existing software is already doing, and I don't think it contradicts anything in USEFOR. I don't believe that it assumes the Subject is structured; I believe, rather, that it is a reasonable backwards compatibility precaution. >>> 37. [00] (5.3) Body of cancel message MAY contain ...explanatory text. >>> Was SHOULD. >> Intentional change. >> The body text serves no protocol purpose and therefore shouldn't be >> subject to a protocol constraint. > It MUST contain an explanation if it's not sent by the original poster, > for admin cancels and spam cancels. MAY is not good enough, unless you > intend to discuss such details in USEPRO. Maybe we should do this (?) Philosophical difference. If the working group wishes to take this approach to a protocol specification, you should not use my draft. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF189w4004449; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:08:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBF189P4004448; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:08:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF188OU004440 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:08:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Gv1YO-0002Qw-Fh for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:08:00 +0100 Received: from d255034.dialin.hansenet.de ([80.171.255.34]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:08:00 +0100 Received: from nobody by d255034.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:08:00 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Responses from the USEFOR WG Chairs on IESG DISCUSSes Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:07:07 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 7 Message-ID: <4581F53B.3C4C@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <45795ED3.7030402@alvestrand.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: d255034.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Harald Alvestrand wrote: [...] > Harald and Alexey Thanks. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF0r55U002690; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:53:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBF0r5Gv002689; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:53:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF0r3n0002680 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:53:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Gv1Jp-0007L2-E0 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:52:57 +0100 Received: from d255034.dialin.hansenet.de ([80.171.255.34]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:52:57 +0100 Received: from nobody by d255034.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:52:57 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Strawman consensus call, mvgroup control message Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:52:28 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 11 Message-ID: <4581F1CC.6A75@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <45780AED.4000509@alvestrand.no> <J9ytKt.Lrr@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45801DE2.4F1C@xyzzy.claranet.de> <JA9oAF.2Dx@clerew.man.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: d255034.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey wrote: > Can you please give us some more details of the things that went wrong? It's better if you judge it for yourself, I'm not sure that I understood it correctly. It's a short thread (with a solution of "lost aliases"): <http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.discuss/thread=10363/focus=10384> Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF0bw7h001190; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:37:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBF0bwjZ001189; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:37:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBF0bubS001180 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:37:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Gv15C-00045D-Ky for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:37:50 +0100 Received: from d255034.dialin.hansenet.de ([80.171.255.34]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:37:50 +0100 Received: from nobody by d255034.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:37:50 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:30:36 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 107 Message-ID: <4581ECAB.2B6D@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: d255034.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: Thanks for the interesting diff list. >> 22. [00] (3.7) Removed recommendation that reading agent SHOULD have the >> capability to display the raw article 'as received'. > Intentional change. > For the reasons spelled out in the section for reading agents, I don't > think makes sense for us to put protocol requirements on the operation of > reading agents. Nothing about the operation of a reading agent affects > the rest of the network. IMO mail and news desperately need manual intervention in the case of errors, they're not designed to run "unattended" in the case of errors. Only real human users can spot some of those issues, and for that job they need the complete technical info. It's a part of the design, it affects the rest of the network if users have no chance to diagnose errors. >> 23. [-1] (3.8) Moderators merely "encouraged" (was SHOULD) to retain >> existing <msg-id>. >> That could cause problems if the original poster later wants to cancel >> it, or if he had forwarded it from some other source. > Intentional change. > As mentioned in one of my earlier messages about general philosophy, I > removed all requirements placed on agents that are not limited in > practice by the protocol. Moderators are given the proto-article and > are free to do anything they wish with it They're free to approve and inject / forward it, or to reject it. But they are NOT free to manipulate the Message-ID. They can add one if it's missing, your "proto-article" analogy is fine. They are not free to do whatever they wish. > there is no effective protocol limits on their modifications to > messages, including whether or not they retain the message ID. Of course there is, users will see if their article was forged or manipulated, and report that. They won't post in the NG of an abusive moderator. Admins can remove the NGs from their server. This is an essential point. You also wouldn't argue that an injecting agent is free to do whatever it wishes. In practice it is, and the standard says what's good - bad - ugly. > This doesn't feel to me to be in scope for a protocol specification. Alternative: Move the complete _concept_ of moderated NGs to USEAGe, anything, not only 3.8. > It's not at all clear to me that posters should have the ability to > cancel messages that they sent to a moderated group Of course they can cancel their own articles, or any forged articles claiming to be "from" them. It's their article. If moderators don't like the content of an article they're free to post their own ideas. They never need to munge / manipulate / forge articles by somebody else. If it's too bad they can reject submitted articles, that's their job. But not manipulate it in any way they like. Adding a note (like the "IESG notes" in RFCs) is already at the border. Truncating articles (and the note explaining how that was done) is also at the border (and IMHO at the wrong side of this border). But without some clear published rules for the relevant NG warning posters how their articles might be mutilated the default ought to be SHOULD NOT. >> 28. [00] (5) Subjects starting with 'cmsg' not accompanied by a Control >> header MAY be rejected. >> We discussed this at some stage, but I don't think we ever agreed it one >> way or the other. > Intentional change. USEFOR is now tuned to "don't do odd things with Subject: cmsg", after years of discussions, this MAY has to be a MUST NOT. It has to be noted as new requirement, a radical change from 1036. That was a WG consensus, I didn't like it, but the alternative "structured subject" was admittedly worse. Please stick to it, news servers have no business to look into the subject at all, end of story. If that collides with reality it should be at least clear that it's the fault of the standard or the server, not the fault of the user or UA. >> 37. [00] (5.3) Body of cancel message MAY contain ...explanatory text. >> Was SHOULD. > Intentional change. > The body text serves no protocol purpose and therefore shouldn't be > subject to a protocol constraint. It MUST contain an explanation if it's not sent by the original poster, for admin cancels and spam cancels. MAY is not good enough, unless you intend to discuss such details in USEPRO. Maybe we should do this (?) Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEM27UZ083157; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:02:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBEM27s6083156; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:02:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEM25R2083146 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:02:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GuyeK-00044r-6O for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:01:56 +0100 Received: from d255034.dialin.hansenet.de ([80.171.255.34]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:01:56 +0100 Received: from nobody by d255034.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:01:56 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: On the issue of publication interval between USEFOR and USEPRO Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:00:39 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 31 Message-ID: <4581C987.74E5@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <458178C0.30101@alvestrand.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: d255034.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Harald Alvestrand wrote: > Thoughts? I'd prefer to get a USEFOR RFC a.s.a.p. That needs an approval. That needs the two [Discuss] cleared or swapped into [Abstain]. To clear the [Discuss] we'd probably need a normative reference, putting USEFOR on hold. If we don't add a normative reference it is already blocked by the [Discuss]. So for my goal doing nothing has probably the same effect as asking for a hold. Doing nothing could also be faster, if Sam and Russ change their [Discuss] into [Abstain]. Besides with this WG it's as shaky as with SPF, folks won't stop to promote wild and wonderful changes until the last microsecond of AUTH48. I'll only believe it if it's published with a proper RFC number. The RFC is also quite important for the sleeping 2822upd draft: Telling the author "BTW, you got the Message-ID wrong as noted in I-D.ietf-usefor-usefor-12, and the <unstructured> [FWS] is also dubious, noted in an obscure pending errata mbox, and the same I-D" isn't very convincing. With a proper RFC number it's better. USEFOR should have an RFC number before the discussions about 2822bis start. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBELNWcP078808; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:23:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBELNWKA078807; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:23:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBELNVeK078793 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:23:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3^clerew*man#ac#uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 4581c0d1.5283.48 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:23:29 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBELNSi7001518 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:23:28 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBELNRQc001513 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:23:27 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23872 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Injection-Date and reinjection (was Protocol changes) Message-ID: <JAA8qq.13v@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87bqm7v68q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:23:14 GMT Lines: 228 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <87bqm7v68q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Responding to this one specifically quickly, since it may save you some >time opening a broader discussion. I think you may have misunderstood the >impact of my changes to the definition of proto-articles. >Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >> 4. [--] (3.2.2,3.4,3.8) Injection-Date can be rewritten. It is clear that the topics of Gatewaying, Reinjection and the role of the Injection-Date header are closely intertwined, and need to be considered together. The WG last considered this in any detail in May of 2004 (archives available on www.imc.org/ietf-usefor). The essential reason for introducing Injection-Date was that we now follow the RFC 2822 principle that the Date header indicates when the article was composed, and hence is unsuited to its role of preventing loops when an article propagates so slowly that it reaches some server after it has already been seen and expired there. So a man who composes and Dates an article and then carries it around on his laptop for 3 weeks before injecting is not disadvantaged (it may be a stupid thing to do, but that is no concern of ours). In the old days, servers had to allow for articles arriving up to 14 days late (transatlantic propagation delays were regularly over a week then). Nowadays, the cutoff will be nearer 3 days. Injection-Date MUST ONLY be created by an injecting agent, but once created it must NEVER be removed so long as there is any possibility that it may still be seen propagating on the same network where it was injected (and that includes all bizarre scenarios of gatewaying it to some other medium/network and later gatewaying it back again). So gatewaying and reinjection are the critical issues. We always understood that reinjection was unnecessary on a perfectly regulated network, but on a real network it would occasionally happen for a whole variety of bizarre yet plausible reasons. Here is a list of examples we produced at that time: . a relaying agent unable to relay an article to its usual peers due to unanticipated communication problems (for example, an agent on a laptop that has been physically disconnected from its usual environment) might attempt instead to reinject it at a site which did not recognize it as a peer; . a relaying agent receiving an attempted relay from a source with which it did not have a peering agreement might choose to reinject it instead, in order to fulfil its obligation to the rest of the network (8.2) to be responsible ... . there might be a genuine misunderstanding between two sites as to whether the relationship between them was as peers for relaying, or as client/server for injecting. . an article might be gatewayed out of Netnews into some other medium, and then back again into the same, or a different, Netnews network. But we carefully did not write that list into the draft, because we did not want to imply that such practices were normal, nor that the list was exhaustive. For sure, there will be other bizarre but plausible reasons why it makes sense that we cannot possibly foresee now. Now the only case for reinjection that Russ seems to recognize is where an article is gatweayed between two totally disjoint Netnews networks, and that is just one half of one of the scenarios I gave above. My belief is that it will most commonly arise where it is being reinjected into the _same_ network; usually because of some misunderstanding between a server and a client as to whether it is peering or injecting (especially likely now that NNRP can accept an IHAVE command and treat it as a POST if the client does not have peering privileges), or maybe as part of a deliberate decision to inject an article to two servers (for additional robustness, or other plausible reasons), where one of them allows peering and the other doesn't. As regards truly disjoint Netnews networks (which we indeed claim to cater for in our document), my belief is that they are extremely rare. Most private networks of which I am aware share the same servers as the regular Usenet, and hence have a tendency to leak. Preventing such leaks, whilst not impossible, is a truly difficult task. Even if one site carefully injects its two categories of netnews to different servers, one can never be sure that some other site on those networks does not regard them as two parts of the same network. And then there can be privately and secretly constructed unofficial paths between them. Therefore, fixing the problem by saying reinjection MUST convert the article back into a proto article (by removing the Injectio-Info and the Injection-Date and cleaning out the Path) just will not work. It *might* work if you removed the Message-ID at the same time (note that a proto article can, and frequently does, already contain a Message-ID). But that would cause all sorts of other problems, especially in the case of the man who was injecting the same article to two sites, for it is a fundamental principle of Usenet that articles with the same(different) message-id ARE the same(different) article. Moreover, once having allowed an Injection-Date to be removed, you have had to reinstate the provision that Dates over 72 hours old SHOULD be rejected (3.4 Step 3 and again in 3.8 Step 4), thus preventing the case of the man who wants to carry his already written article around for more than 72 hours on his laptop, which was one of the reasons for introducing Injection-Date in the first place. As for what injecting agents should do if offered an article they recognize as already injected, that is really a matter of site policy (they clearly have the right to drop it). But to REQUIRE them to drop it may cut off many perfectly reasonable cases, and is certainly not current practice. Moreover, allowing Injection-Date to be removed at a Gateway, as Russ proposes, is only safe if you can be sure you are gatewaying in a manner that will NEVER allow it back into the original network. Much safer to leave it there (assuming there is some way to express it in the other medium). When we first discussed all this, back in 2004, we tossed the ideas around for a few weeks, and when it seemed we has reached a rough consensus I wrote down and posted what I understood we had agreed (because I did not want to start cutting new text in the draft until it was quite clear what was to be done). I reproduce below what I wrote then. On re-reading it now, I still think it describes correctly what needs to be done. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. There will be a distinction between the process of "injection" (which will be the normal situation) and "reinjection", which should be a rare event brought about by exceptional circumstances. We discussed many of these circumstances (servers on visiting laptops, use of IHAVE by unauthorized users, strange gatewaying). I shall write text to indicate that it is for such exceptional situations, and that injecting sites should only allow it as a result of a clear policy decision to do so. 2. There shall be a header Injection-Date. Syntax as for Date. MUST ONLY be inserted by injecting agents. This header is intended to replace the currently-used but nowhere-documented header "NNTP-Posting-Date" (cf. NOTE in the present 6.19 regarding NNTP-Posting-Host and X-Trace). 3. The existing Injector-Info header to be renamed as Injection-Info (for consistency of naming), and the posting-date parameter to be removed from it. This header SHOULD be rewritten on reinjection (because the reinjecting site takes responsibility for it). 4. An injecting agent: SHOULD reject any article whose Date-header is more than 24 hours into the future. MUST reject any article which already has an Injection-Date (unless it is convinced that it really ought to be reinjecting). MUST NOT remove any Injection-Date or NNTP-Posting-Date header that is already present. [Is that too strong for NNTP-Posting-Date?] MUST[1] create an Injection-Date-header (except when forwarding to a moderator). SHOULD create an Injection-Info-header (removing any already present); likewise Complaints-To header. 5. A reinjecting agent[3]: SHOULD reject any article whose Date-header is more than 24 hours into the future. MUST NOT remove any Injection-Date or NNTP-Posting-Date header that is already present. IF there is no Injection-Date-header already present: MUST/SHOULD/MAY[4] reject if Date is more than 72 hours into the past, and then MUST create an Injection-Date-header. SHOULD create an Injection-Info-header (removing any already present); likewise Complaints-To header. 6. A posting agent MUST NOT create an Injection-Date-header. 7. A relaying or serving agent: MUST look at the Injection-Date (or, if missing, at the Date) and refuse the article if that predates the earliest articles of which it normally keeps record, or if it is more than 24 hours into the future (though they MAY use a margin less than that 24 hours). 5. A moderator: MUST remove any Injection-Date header already present (though there should be none). SHOULD[5] always retain the incoming Date-header (it is up to his injector to do the 'right thing' as regards staleness checks and inserting Injection-Date). This actually simplifies the moderator's duties compared to the present text. Notes: [1] If you want a MUST create Injection-Date-header on injecting, then that makes it a Required header, and it goes in Chapter 5. So if anyone thinks it should be a SHOULD, then please say so quickly, because I don't want to be moving it to Chapter 6 once I have started updating the text. [2] NOTE that other agents cannot rely on the presence of Injection-Date, since it will be a new feature of our standard. [3] I don't actually intend to define the term "reinjecting agent"; that was just for this explanation. [4] I put that staleness check in because, in the case of reinjection, the thing might have been wandering around the network for days without any Injection-Date. Advice needed regarding the MUST/SHOULD/MAY. [5] I could be persuaded that should be MUST. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEKnf1I074684; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:49:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBEKnf2N074683; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:49:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEKnedA074676 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:49:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D06259762; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:46:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29618-02; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:45:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from [172.28.62.90] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D90D25975D; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:45:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:48:44 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>, ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata Message-ID: <13D1E93F995F11DE450CDCEB@[192.168.1.103]> In-Reply-To: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> References: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.6 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> --On 14. desember 2006 08:50 -0800 Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote: > * (Still under discussion.) We may wish to reintroduce the possibility > of a path-identity that is not a resolvable name in DNS. Last time I looked at the content of Path: headers, I think that there were a fair number of names in dotted.name form that were not DNS resolvable. So banning those names would be a break with existing practice. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEHL8jK049916; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:21:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBEHL8i9049915; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:21:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from relay03.pair.com (relay03.pair.com [209.68.5.17]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id kBEHL6LM049906 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:21:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from forrest@mibsoftware.com) Received: (qmail 99567 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2006 17:21:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.11?) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 14 Dec 2006 17:21:05 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 216.37.253.40 Message-ID: <458187FB.2020709@mibsoftware.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:20:59 -0500 From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <forrest@mibsoftware.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: On the issue of publication interval between USEFOR and USEPRO References: <458178C0.30101@alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: <458178C0.30101@alvestrand.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > Folks, > > after reviewing the archives, it's become clear to me that this WG has > been operating under the assumption that USEFOR would not be published > as an RFC before USEPRO rolled out of the WG - or the WG shut down > without producing USEPRO. Was this an assumption, or just the consensus of a choice? > Thoughts? Hold USEFOR. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEHC6BS049233; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:12:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBEHC6GD049232; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:12:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEHC5Uh049226 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:12:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3$clerew#man&ac*uk) by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 458185e4.e211.d0 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:12:04 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBEHC3lO015310 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:12:03 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBEHC3Ft015306 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:12:03 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23869 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Strawman consensus call, mvgroup control message Message-ID: <JA9oAF.2Dx@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <45780AED.4000509@alvestrand.no> <J9ytKt.Lrr@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45801DE2.4F1C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:01:27 GMT Lines: 18 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <45801DE2.4F1C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: >I liked the idea, but the technical details are apparently complex. >The odd effects of a manual mvgroup-emulation on GMaNe (ASRG list) >convinced me that "mvgroup" is not trivial. Can you please give us some more details of the things that went wrong? -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEGodeW046312; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:50:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBEGodr7046311; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:50:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEGoca6046305 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:50:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E10E04C88C for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:50:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6FA4C91D for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:50:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C5DABE7A49; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:50:27 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata Organization: The Eyrie Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:50:27 -0800 Message-ID: <87fybia0bw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> As a summary from the recent long threads, here are the changes I believe should be made to draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 if we go forward with that document. The first one below has not previously been discussed on the list. * USEFOR was changed (correctly, IMO) to allow only WSP between the arguments of control commands, not FWS. I caught this for newgroup and rmgroup but missed it for checkgroups and cancel, both of which need FWS to WSP changes. * application/news-groupinfo and application/news-checkgroups need language limiting the selection of character sets. I like Harald's proposal and would tend towards something like: Implementations predating this standard may not understand MIME headers and expect newsgroup names to be in ASCII. Therefore, regardless of what charset is used, the result of reading each octet of the body and setting bit 8 to zero MUST be a valid message specifying the same newsgroup name [or names for checkgroups]. There is no requirement that the newsgroup description survive this treatment. * multipart/related in newgroup control messages should be multipart/mixed instead. * A separate sub-section of duties, before the individual agent duties and possibly as part of the same sub-section as the identity discussion, should be added specifying Path header construction. The Path header example should be moved to be a sub-section of that section. That section can lay out all the construction requirements for the Path header field and just be referred to by the individual duties sections. * The possibility of adding multiple path-identities should be reintroduced as part of the rework of the Path description. * Serving agents also are not required to modify the Path header field if processing an article from a relaying agent or injecting agent that's part of the same server. This can be handled more generally in the redone Path section. * application/news-transmission should explicitly note that, contrary to the previous registration, batches are not permitted. * The trimming requirement for References should probably go back to MUST. * The correct description of special routing for newgroup and rmgroup control messages is something more like: Exceptionally, control messages creating or removing newsgroups (newgroup or rmgroup control messages, for example) SHOULD be relayed if the affected group appears in its Newsgroups header field and the sending agent would have supplied and the receiving agent would have received the newsgroup affected by the control message had it existed, even if it currently does not. The current USEPRO text for construction of the Newsgroups header field for those control messages should be restored (and probably as a general statement about group control messages that affect only one group rather than stated independently in both newgroup and rmgroup). * We need some resolution of the different conflicting syntaxes for ihave and sendme control messages. Path of least resistance is probably to revert to the current USEPRO tactic of two separate ABNFs. * (Still under discussion.) We may wish to reintroduce the possibility of a path-identity that is not a resolvable name in DNS. * (Still under discussion.) We may wish to add a sentence about the construction of newsgroups in the to.* hierarchy. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEGG8Sv041435; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:16:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBEGG80F041434; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:16:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEGG7tj041428 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:16:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8710C25975F for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:12:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22521-03 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:12:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CB925975E for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:12:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <458178C0.30101@alvestrand.no> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:16:00 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: On the issue of publication interval between USEFOR and USEPRO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Folks, after reviewing the archives, it's become clear to me that this WG has been operating under the assumption that USEFOR would not be published as an RFC before USEPRO rolled out of the WG - or the WG shut down without producing USEPRO. After reviewing the linkages between the two, I've concluded that formally and practically, we DO have the option of letting USEFOR be published at this time (once the IESG is through with it). In order to have USEFOR be held, we have to enter an explicit request with the IESG to hold it, and we haven't done that yet. We could simply not do it. (This would, of course, mean that if we were to find something in USEPRO that required a change in USEFOR, we would have to issue a new version of USEFOR.) I realize that this is a new idea. I'm not sure it's a good one.But I want to make sure it's been aired. Thoughts? Harald Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEB8F7h005640; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:08:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBEB8F7w005639; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:08:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBEB8DoZ005612 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:08:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAAC25975A; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:04:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14399-07; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:04:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45CF25974B; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:04:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45813096.7000905@alvestrand.no> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:08:06 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Injection-Date (Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00) References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87bqm7v68q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87bqm7v68q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> I read the changes of language around injection-date as resulting from Russ' removal of the idea of "reinjection". Given that reinjection does not happen, I don't see any change in injection-date allowed. Harald Russ Allbery wrote: > Responding to this one specifically quickly, since it may save you some > time opening a broader discussion. I think you may have misunderstood the > impact of my changes to the definition of proto-articles. > > Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > > >> 4. [--] (3.2.2,3.4,3.8) Injection-Date can be rewritten. >> > > >> A major change, which could potentially lead to loops, and has >> necessitated reverting to reliance on Date header in many >> situations. The whole point of introuducing Injection-Date was to let >> Date reflect poster's composition time, even if not injected until weeks >> later. This is now lost. I shall raise a separate thread for this issue. >> > > Injection-Date may not be rewritten (except by gateways; see below). The > intention of my draft is stronger than the existing USEPRO in that not > only does it prohibit injecting agents from rewriting Injection-Date, it > prohibits them from accepting articles that already contain an > Injection-Date header at all. See section 3.4, point 2: > > 2. It MUST reject any proto-article that does not have the proper > mandatory header fields for a proto-article; that has Injection- > Date, Injection-Info, or Xref header fields; that has a Path > header field containing the "POSTED" <diag-keyword>; or that is > not syntactically valid as defined by [USEFOR]. It SHOULD > reject any proto-article which contains a header field > deprecated for Netnews. It MAY reject any proto-article that > contains trace header fields indicating that it was already > injected by an injecting agent that did not add Injection-Info > or Injection-Date. > > supported by section 3.3.1, paragraph 2: > > A proto-article has the same format as a normal article except that > the Injection-Date, Injection-Info, and Xref header fields MUST NOT > be present; the Path header field MUST NOT contain a "POSTED" <diag- > keyword>; and any of the following mandatory header fields MAY be > omitted: Message-ID, Date, and Path. In all other respects, a proto- > article MUST be a valid Netnews article. > > The only place where there is a provision for removing an Injection-Date > header is when gatewaying a message from one Netnews network to another, > since such gatewaying involves transforming a message from an article back > to a proto-article and then reinjecting it. The agent making such a > transformation is, in this case, specifically required to perform the > checks on the Injection-Date header that the injecting agent would > otherwise be performing: > > In the exceptional case that an article needs to be reinjected for > some reason (such as transferring an article from one Netnews to > another where those networks have no relaying agreement), the posting > agent doing the reinjection MUST convert the article back into a > proto-article before passing it to an injecting agent (such as by > renaming the Injection-Info and Injection-Date header fields and > removing any Xref header field) and MUST perform the date checks on > the existing Injection-Date or Date header fields that would > otherwise be done by the injecting agent. > > Reinjecting articles may cause loops, loss of trace information, and > other problems and should only be done with care and when there is no > available alternative. A posting agent that does reinjection is a > limited type of gateway and as such is subject to all of the > requirements of an incoming gateway in addition to the requirements > of a posting agent. > > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBE7hlfm076188; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:43:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBE7hl9q076187; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:43:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBE7hktm076171 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:43:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id A57E34C3B0 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:43:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1AA4C3A7 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:43:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 29A92E7914; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:43:45 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 In-Reply-To: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:41:13 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:43:45 -0800 Message-ID: <873b7i9b2m.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > 1. [-1] (2.2) <path-identity> - Possibility to use a FQDN not resolvable > in the DNS. > (This was a suggestion by Harald, & 1 of 2 alternatives in USEPRO) Intentional, but I don't object to changing it. Yeah, I took the first listed option in USEPRO which didn't include this case. I have no major problem with including it and no strong opinion either way. This isn't a change from USEPRO so much as my picking one of the two listed options that made the most sense to me, and it's not a place where I have a strong opinion. The intentional change here is that I added a different preferred first option, namely the FQDN of the news server itself. > 2. [00] (3.2) <path-identity>s are case-sensitive. > I was always told that some servers treated them one way and some the > other, so you could not rely on either. If anything, I would have > expected case-insensitive (that is what domain-names are, and what > USEFOR declares <diag-keyword>s are). Intentional change. Declaring them case-sensitive is the conservative choice. If you treat them as case-sensitive and they're actually compared case-insensitively, everything works fine. The opposite is not true; if your Path identity varies in case, servers that compare case-sensitively may add incorrect MISMATCH entries or send you articles that you sent them. The one exception is if you use a Path header that varies only in case from another site and assume that it will be compared case-sensitively. I thought about adding language to specifically say not to do that, but it's hard to tell a site how to guarantee that without some way of psychically determining what <path-nodot> entries might be used by other sites. Anyone doing this is already violating the SHOULD that says path identities should be in all lowercase, so adding an additional restriction that's difficult to phrase didn't seem to me to add anything worthwhile to the protocol description. > 3. [-1] (3.3.1,3.4,3.9.2) From not omittable in proto-article > There is existing usage where the injecting agent fills in From header > (not possible in NNTP, of course) Intentional change. What injecting agent supports this? Telling posting agents that this is allowed when very few injecting agents support it doesn't strike me as a good idea. This doesn't allow for injecting agents that replace the From header with one containing the authenticated identity of the user, and I do know of some injecting agents which do this, but I don't think that's something that we want to support. That's not the purpose of the From header; it's the purpose of the Sender header or (far better) the Injection-Info header. > 4. [--] (3.2.2,3.4,3.8) Injection-Date can be rewritten. > A major change, which could potentially lead to loops, and has > necessitated reverting to reliance on Date header in many > situations. The whole point of introuducing Injection-Date was to let > Date reflect poster's composition time, even if not injected until weeks > later. This is now lost. I shall raise a separate thread for this issue. Addressed in an earlier message. > 5. [-1] (3.3.4) SHOULD trim References to keep <= 998: reduced from MUST. > This could allow header lines longer than 998 octets, which is known to > severely impact interoperability. It is not disputed that trimming when > within the 998 limit is a MAY. Intentional change, but I'm dithering. There is an INN bug in older versions that will cause nnrpd to reject messages with a single header field in excess of 998 octets, folded. This is clearly a bug in INN (and was fixed). I don't mind changing this to MUST, but I'm not sure there's sufficient justification for that strength of requirement. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I've argued both sides of this one at different times, so maybe it's best to just leave good enough alone and not change this. > 6. [00] (3.4) Injecting agents reporting rejection to user agent; was > SHOULD, now merely "encouraged". > All it needs is an NNTP 44x response or similar. Intentional change. What this means is that the Netnews protocol would be placing a requirement on the transport layer that it have a means of reporting errors back to a client. NNTP has such a means, but I don't think this is important enough at the protocol level to require of all transport layers. I don't see a compelling need for a protocol requirement here. Not returning specific rejection errors to a posting agent does not break the Netnews protocol; it's a quality of implementation issue, and there's enough rationale still present in the document to make implementors aware of it. > 7. [+1] (3.4) Injecting agent SHOULD have access to list of newsgroups. > So it can reject if not at least one group in Newgroups header exists > This is an addition to agreed MUST keep list of moderated groups. Intentional change. > 8. [-1] (3.4) Requirement for injecting agent to forward articles to > moderator groups reduced from MUST to SHOULD. > If some small latitude is needed for when the moderated group is in a > crosspost to some remote and unknown hierarchy, then this should be > stated explicitly. Intentional change. This section says more than just that, and I think the change makes more sense with more context: 7. If the Newsgroups header contains one or more moderated groups and the proto-article does not contain an Approved header field, the injecting agent SHOULD forward it to a moderator as specified in Section 3.4.1. If the article cannot be forwarded to a moderator for some reason, it MUST be rejected. In other words, in my language, the standard does not REQUIRE that an injecting agent be capable of forwarding posts to moderators, but does REQUIRE that it either forward posts to moderators or reject them and supporting moderated groups is RECOMMENDED. I think this strikes a balance that makes more sense from an implementation perspective than the current USEFOR language. > 9. [-1] (3.4,3.5) Prepending of <path-identity> to Path by injecting > agent reduced from MUST to SHOULD. > I would accept that prepending the <path-diagnostic> POSTED is a SHOULD. And that's exactly what my language says. Here's the text: 9. The injecting agent SHOULD then prepend the <path-identity> of the injecting agent followed by "!.POSTED", optionally "." and the FQDN or IP address of the source, and a further "!" to the content of the Path header field. If the injecting agent does not support the use of <diag-keyword>, it MUST instead prepend its <path-identity> followed by "!"; one or the other of these mechanisms MUST be used. Adding the <path-identity> with the <path-diagnostic> is a SHOULD. If it doesn't add the <path-diagnostic>, it MUST add its own <path-identity> following the current rules for constructing Path headers. The language is phrased similarly for relaing and serving agents. Changing the <path-diagnostic> from a MUST to a SHOULD is an intentional change. > 10. [00] (3.4) Folding of Path header when length becomes excessive > reduced from SHOULD to MAY. Intentional change. If Path header folding turns out to be a serious problem in practice, I'd prefer to leave open to agents the alternative of not doing it. > 11. [-1] (3.4) Recommendation that each injecting agent SHOULD use a > consistent format for Injection-Info removed. > Otherwise, the task of chasing the bad guys becomes harder. Intentional change. I don't see much purpose served by this requirement and the meaning is very murky to me. I think I understand the general intention, but the rule is not very specific and I'd have a hard time saying whether a particular behavior complied with this rule or not. If the format allows so much flexibility that we have to make a rule like this, I think that's a problem with the specification of the header field. > 12. [-1] (3.5) The significance of "world" and "local" in the > Distribution header are no longer mentioned. > We recently took care to reserve these in USEFOR, but that requires > backup here to ensure the protocol fulfils that promise. Intentional change. Most everything useful to be said about "world" and "local" was already said in USEFOR, and "world" in particular SHOULD NOT be used anyway (as already stated in USEFOR). Distribution is generally a waste of effort, and I'd rather keep the rules related to it to a minimum since in practice few sites are ever going to care. If we really have to, we can say something like "If the Distribution header field contains a <dist-name> of 'world', the article SHOULD be treated as if the Distribution header field were absent," but note that this is *not* how existing software behaves. INN, for instance, doesn't treat "world" any differently from any other distribution except in its default configuration files. I wouldn't argue strongly against that change. I don't see anything else that should be said about local. The language in USEFOR now is better and more accurate, IMO, than the language currently in USEPRO. > 13. [+1] (3.5,3.6) Removed possibility of "aliassing out" a site where > you didn't want an article to go by including it in the Path to the > right of POSTED. > This is probably an improvement, but it also needs to be considered > alongside other conventions for "aliassing out", such as the > 'cybercancel' convention which is no longer mentioned at all. Intentional change. I think this whole area is best deferred to USEAGE or some other best practice document. It's thankfully becoming less important, and the whole pseudo-site convention is complex and strange enough (and enough of a corner case) that it really belongs in a separate document about the bizarre world of third-party cancels. > 14. [+1] (3.5) Relaying agent MUST reject articles without Newgroups or > Message-ID or (injection-Date or Date). > Before, it was SHOULD reject for any missing mandatory header. Intentional change. This is already done in practice by relaying agents that perform even the most basic validity checks on articles, and *everyone* rejects (or at least should be rejecting) articles without Message-ID or Date/Injection-Date headers since the protocol simply doesn't work without them. I can see removing Newsgroups here, but I'd rather keep it. > 15. [-1] (3.5) Relaying agent MUST reject any article already already > sent to it. > This is impossible unless relayer keeps a history file (many don't). > Nothing breaks if you don't do this, and the usual check on the Path > header is normally considered sufficient. I might buy a SHOULD here, > with suitable wording. Intentional change. Every relayer I've ever heard of keeps a history file and has to to be usable in the real world. The protocol breaks down badly if you have multiple peers and don't do this. This is a core part of the flood-fill protocol. > 16. [-1] (3.5) Relaying agent SHOULD deal with cancel message (if it > chooses to honour it) > Yes, USEPRO says the same, but I suspect both are wrong, because it is > serving/storage agents that should be doing this (all a pure relaying > agent can do is then not to propagate it further). Not actually a change, but I think this should stay. Here's what it says: 5. It SHOULD reject any article that matches an already-received cancel control message or the contents of the Supersedes header field of an accepted article, provided that the relaying agent chose (on the basis of local site policy) to honor that cancel control message or Supersedes header field. This isn't about acting on cancel messages for messages one has already accepted. It's about accepting cancels before the message arrives, which is sufficiently counter-intuitive that it needs to be explicitly mentioned. I've seen news server implementations that didn't think about this, and at least in a spam cancel world it used to be important. Relaying agents of course always have the option of simply not acting on cancel messages if they don't want to deal. > 17. [00] (3.5) Relaying agents SHOULD determine verified/expected source > of article and construct <path-diagnostics> accordingly. > USEPRO offers various MUST/SHOULD choices here for discussion. Earlier > USEPROs had MUST. (It is agreed that the <path-identity> itself is MUST, > in contrast to the case of injecting agents mentioned above.) Intentional change. As above, I made this SHOULD everwhere. And as mentioned above, I think you misread the part about injecting agents; adding the <path-identity> is still a MUST in my language. > 18. [-1] (3.5) No provision for >1 <path-identity> per relaying agent. > I think we wrote PATH in USEFOR on the assumption that would be allowed, > and Richard Clayton had an example where he needed a <path-nodot> in > addition to a domain-name. I see you also removed this from the example > in 3.5.1. Intentional change, but I dithered about it and agree with changing it back. The main reason not to add this is just complexity of description, not anything internal to the protocol. The protocol itself doesn't really care how many <path-identity>s you add, so I just need to find a better way of describing the Path header field manipulation so that adding this didn't strain the language. I think moving the Path header field manipulation into a separate section that's just referred to by the separate agent duties sections will give us the right layout to clearly add this without making one of these numbered steps even more complex. > 19. [00] (3.5) No provision to omit <path-identity> for intermediate > servers on same site. > Where a site consists of a large farm of servers (for incoming, outgoing > and whatever else articles) there should be no need to clutter the Path > header with them all (unless the site finds that helpful). USEPRO > therefore relaxed the requirement, provided the outgoing one could be > verified by the next site. Unintentional. Sorry about that. I handled this case for relaying agents and just missed serving agents. Relaying agents say: 7. If the relaying agent is processing an article from an injecting agent that is part of the same news server, it MAY leave the Path header field unmodified. Serving agents similarly need to say: 7. If the serving agent is processing an article from an injecting or relaying agent that is part of the same news server, it MAY leave the Path header field unmodified. Having a separate section describing Path header construction will make it easier to catch inconsistencies like this. > 20. [00] (3.5) Relaying agent MAY add a new Xref header. > Why might it want to do that? Intentional change. Because the same piece of software also implements a serving agent, which has to add the Xref header, and the same code path is used for all articles received by the server whether they are for further relaying or local serving. Everything already copes with relaying agents adding Xref or changing Xref header fields and it's common for combined news servers to do this, so it's easiest to just explicitly allow it. > 21. [00] (3.6) Storage of control messages in the (pseudo) hierarchy > control(.*) is a SHOULD. > Is this any of our business? Intentional change. See previous discussion. > 21. [-1] (3.6) No mention of processing cancel messages by > serving/storage agents. > This is odd, given that only a serving agent can actually delete an > article or otherwise deactivate it. Also, you need to deal here with the > case where a cancel arrives before the article (it is covered in 5.3, > but it is the serving agent's duty to implement it). The same language is here as for relaying agents, but you may have missed it because it's combined with another similar point: 3. It SHOULD reject any article that has already been successfully sent to it or that matches an already-received and honored cancel message or Supersedes header field following the same rules as a relaying agent (Section 3.5). Yes, there is no specific mention in the duties section of acting on control messages for already received messages. This is for the same reason that there's no specific mention in the duties section of acting on newgroup, rmgroup, or checkgroups control messages. My presumption is that the description of the cancel control message later in its own section is sufficient. The case of a control message arriving before an article is only mentioned because it's a surprising corner case. > 22. [00] (3.7) Removed recommendation that reading agent SHOULD have the > capability to display the raw article 'as received'. Intentional change. For the reasons spelled out in the section for reading agents, I don't think makes sense for us to put protocol requirements on the operation of reading agents. Nothing about the operation of a reading agent affects the rest of the network. I certainly agree with this recommendation as part of the best practices in USEAGE. > 23. [-1] (3.8) Moderators merely "encouraged" (was SHOULD) to retain > existing <msg-id>. > That could cause problems if the original poster later wants to cancel > it, or if he had forwarded it from some other source. Intentional change. As mentioned in one of my earlier messages about general philosophy, I removed all requirements placed on agents that are not limited in practice by the protocol. Moderators are given the proto-article and are free to do anything they wish with it; there is no effective protocol limits on their modifications to messages, including whether or not they retain the message ID. This doesn't feel to me to be in scope for a protocol specification. It's certainly in scope for a best practices document about moderation. It's not at all clear to me that posters should have the ability to cancel messages that they sent to a moderated group (think RISK digest, for instance), and I think this is going too far into the realm of network policy and moderation policy to address in this document. > 24. [00] (3.2.1) Removed provision (MAY) for outgoing gateway to change > Content-Transfer-Encoding. > Given that all other agents, from injecting agents on, are forbidden to > change the Content-Transfer-Encoding (which will normally be 8bit or > 7bit in Netnews except for genuine binary objects), it seems desirable > to mention the exception here, where it may be necessary before the > article can be passed through some email agents. I don't consider this to be a change. There's nothing that says that it *can't* change the Content-Transfer-Encoding, and the only explicit statement in my document about CTE is a parenthetical comment for the injecting agent that says it's not allowed to change the CTE as a component of the general prohibition on changing the body of the message. There isn't a general statement about CTE that has to be overridden here. An outgoing gateway, by its very nature, is not subject to any protocol restrictions from a Netnews perspective, only recommendations. It may change the CTE or do anything else it needs to do. > 25. [+1] (4.1) Application/news-transmission no longer handles batches. > That needs to be mentioned explicitly, as it is a change to an existing > application type. Intentional change. Agreed that this difference from the registration needs to be mentioned explicitly. > 26. [-1] (4.2,4.3) Removed requirement that > application/news-[groupinfo,checkgroups] MUST NOT be used except with > relevant control messages. > Application types are inherently dangerous if they are executed when > they should not be. Is there any situation where these two could > properly be used outside of their intended control messages? Sure, for > informational purposes, or for passing by private arrangement from one > newsadmin to another, but best leave it to their common sense if they > want to break the rules. In any case, news-checkgroups does not make > sense without its accompanying checkscope parameter. Intentional change. I can't think of an example of how application/news-groupinfo could be dangerous. It's nothing but a bit of text giving a newsgroup name and a description. In and of itself, it has no force, power, or action whatsoever. Similarly, application/news-checkgroups is simple text; the only difference is that it inherently represents a claim that it constitutes a complete list of newsgroups in a particular hierarchy. I think that the security implications of this claim are adequately dealt with by the security considerations section of the registration: Security considerations: This media type provides only a means for conveying a list of newsgroups and does not provide any information indicating whether the sender is authorized to state which newsgroups should exist within a hierarchy. Such authorization must be accomplished by other means. Prohibiting use of these media types in all other situations is overly broad and seems unnecessary to me. If I mail a checkgroups for a hierarchy to another newsadmin, I don't see any reason why I should be prohibited from using application/news-checkgroups for that mail message. Similarly, if a uk.* hierarchy administrator wanted to convey to uk.* Control the correct information for a new group, I don't see any reason to prohibit doing so as an application/news-groupinfo part in a mail message. > 27. [+1] (4.3) Application/news-[groupinfo,checkgroups] have a charset > parameter. > I think we are now agreed abut this, but with a restriction to having > ASCII as a subset. Intentional change. Agreed that we need additional text specifying ASCII as a subset. > 27. [-1] (5) Nothing stated regarding Newsgroups header of Control > messages. > Was SHOULD include the groups affected (& possibly others). Without > that, control messages won't propagate to the places they are likely to > be needed. Intentional change, but after looking at the INN code, I was wrong. See the duties of a relaying agent, which I modified to reflect what I thought was the existing practice for newgroup propagation: Exceptionally, control messages creating new newsgroups (newgroup control messages) SHOULD be relayed if the sending agent has been configured to supply and the receiving agent to receive the newsgroup affected by the control message, even if that newsgroup does not currently exist and even if the control message does not contain that group in its Newsgroups header field. Looking at INN's code, though, that's not exactly how it behaves. It is indeed still useful to post the messages to the correct newsgroups. So, I think we should go back to Charles's previous language for constructing the Newsgroups header field for newgroup and rmgroup messages, and what the above should really say is: Exceptionally, control messages creating or removing newsgroups (newgroup or rmgroup control messages, for example) SHOULD be relayed if the affected group appears in its Newsgroups header field and the sending agent would have supplied and the receiving agent would have received the newsgroup affected by the control message had it existed, even if it currently does not. without that bit that I added at the end, which was based on an incorrect understanding of the code. In other words, mostly I messed this up; sorry about that. The remaining effective change over the existing USEPRO document is that I made the special relaying rules a SHOULD rather than a MUST and described them in a different way. I'm not horribly happy with my language above; I just think it's a minor improvement. I'd welcome an even better improvement. > 28. [00] (5) Subjects starting with 'cmsg' not accompanied by a Control > header MAY be rejected. > We discussed this at some stage, but I don't think we ever agreed it one > way or the other. Intentional change. > 29. [00] (5.2) Newsgroup-names MUST be checked against disallowed names > before group control message is honoured. > Was SHOULD. That MUST seems a bit excessive for rmgroup and checkgroups. > Shouldn't it apply just to newgroup? Intentional change. It's just as important for checkgroups as it is for newgroup. Given that, I included it for rmgroup as well since I can't think of any reason why it would hurt and it improves the protocol description to make it a general statement for all group control messages. (Which, note, includes any introduced by other documents, such as mvgroup.) > 30. [-1] (5.2) Nothing said about content of Approved header. > Surely, it SHOULD identify the person/identity/role of the issuer, and > be a working email address. Even in alt.* "Approved: foo" is not really > good enough. News servers are usually configured with what to expect > there for each hierarchy. Intentional change. The content of the Approved header serves no protocol purpose, and USEFOR already adequately covers the definition of its content. Control message authorization is done on the basis of the Sender or From header (preferrably in combination with a digital signature). > 31. [-1] (5.2.1) Newgroup message SHOULD include application/group-info. > Was MUST (though I wouldn't take that to exclude a "For your newsgroups > file:" to be scanned for - if allowing that was the intent of the > SHOULD, then some rewording could cover it). That scanning is currently > "MAY" which is possbly too weak. Or is it trying to allow the case where > no description exists for the group (for which I would still have > expected a Newgroups File entry with just the newsgroup-name, which is > how a checkgroups would show it). Intentional change. Newsgroup descriptions are optional in the protocol and newgroup messages without descriptions work fine with existing software. Some hierarchies do not use newsgroup descriptions at all. They would have to come up with something to put there to issue a checkgroups, but not all hierarchies issue checkgroups control messages. I think SHOULD strikes the right balance; MUST is too strong because nothing breaks if it's omitted. > 32. [-1] (5.2.1) Newgroup message containing other attachments in > addition to news-groupinfo to be multipart/related (was > multipart/mixed). > I don't see what the 'relationship' is. Unintentional change. Agreed, this should be multipart/mixed. > 33. [+1] (5.2.3) Checkgroups message still contains chkscope and > chksernr arguments. > No change from USEPRO. I think I finally persuaded Russ this should > remain so. I'm not horribly happy about it, and in particular the chksernr parameter adds a new requirement for a local data store for a news server to keep track of the previous serial number applied. I'm not sure if anyone's going to really implement this. But the argument in favor is compelling, so.... I guess I'm reluctantly willing to see if anyone picks it up. > 34. [00] (5.2.3) Checkgroups SHOULD contain sub-hierarchies excluded by > chkscope, for backwards compatibility. > Fine in principle, but maybe not implementable. If de.alt.* were as > chaotic as alt.* (is it?) there would be no way the admins of de.* could > include a defnitive list of de.alt.*. So some qualification is needed. Intentional change. See previous discussion. > 35. [+1] (5.2.3) Chksernr MUST increase with successive checkgroups > message. > Was SHOULD. Intentional change. This was added as a security feature, and it's worthless if there aren't strong guarantees about how it's used. I also added language not present in the USEPRO draft RECOMMENDING that servers implement chksernr processing, since if we're going to specify it, we need to say it has to be used, or it's a pointless addition. > 36. [00] (5.2.3) Body of checkgroups SHOULD be application/checkgroups, > and otherwise SHOULD treat as if it were. > Why does that SHOULD differ from the corresponding MUST in newgroups? I > would have expected "SHOULD ... and otherwise MUST ...". Intentional change. What MUST in newgroup? Scanning the body in newgroup messages without a MIME part is a MAY. It's raised to SHOULD in checkgroups because unlike for newgroups, this is actually necessary to honor the checkgroups. It's SHOULD and not MUST because I don't see the justification for the stronger requirement. If a news server wants to apply a different set of heuristics to examining untagged checkgroups bodies for some reason, I don't see any obvious cause to prohibit that. Treating it the same as application/news-checkgroups is just the RECOMMENDED approach that will generally work fine. > 37. [00] (5.3) Body of cancel message MAY contain ...explanatory text. > Was SHOULD. Intentional change. The body text serves no protocol purpose and therefore shouldn't be subject to a protocol constraint. > 38. [-1] (5.3) No mention of who should be in From/Sender of cancel > message. > Agreed it is not the person who posted the original article. USEPRO says > it "should" be the person who issued the cancel. That should really be > "SHOULD". Intentional change. The From/Sender of a cancel message is no different in definition than the From/Sender of any other Netnews message, and as such I think USEFOR covers the situation sufficiently. I don't see a reason to call special attention to the fields for cancel messages when cancel messages are no different than normal articles in this regard. > 39. [-1] (5.5) The <relayer-name> in ihave and sendme control messages > is now optional. > It is required to be present in USEPRO and in Son-of-1036. Unintentional change. USEPRO offers two different syntaxes, one of which is marked SHOULD NOT, and I found that confusing. I tried to combine them and missed this distinction. (So, actually, it's not required to be present in USEPRO; it's only a SHOULD NOT to omit it.) I'm not sure what to do with this. I find having two separate ABNFs for the same field to be very confusing. I thought I could just use the varient form as the more general one and mention in the description that the message IDs SHOULD be in the body and not the header, but apparently whether the relayer name is optional is also different between the forms, which makes them not compatible. This area is annoying. I hate spending time on these control messages in the working group when essentially no one uses them. To make it worse, I'm almost certainly retreading a discussion that we already had. Maybe having two varient ABNFs is the best that we can do. > 40. [-1] (5.5) Format of batched news in response to sendme removed. > Note that this was a format 'on the wire' and was intended to be sent on > the same 'wire' as the ihave and sendme messages (which would usually be > a UUCP connection). Hence it is a legitimate item to > standardize. Probably needs some brief mention of its compressed > versions. Intentional change. Upon receipt of the sendme message (and a decision to honor it), the receiving agent sends the article or articles requested. The mechanism for this transmission is unspecified by this document and is arranged between the sites involved. Specifying the behavior of the transport layer is out of the scope of this document. Discussion of the UUCP batch format no more belongs here than does a discussion of dot-escaping in NNTP. > 41. [-1] (5.5) The protocol for using the 'to.' newsgroup-name is > omitted. > Insofar as this protocol may still occasionally be used, it needs to be > documented (as with the batch format). I have: These control messages are normally sent as point-to-point articles between two sites and not then sent on to other sites. Newsgroups beginning with "to." are reserved for such point-to-point communications. Son-of has: It is conventional to reserve newsgroup names beginning with "to." for test messages sent on an essentially point-to- point basis (see also the ihave/sendme protocol described in section 7.2); newsgroup names beginning with "to." SHOULD not be used for any other purpose. The second (and possibly later) components of such a name should, together, comprise the relayer name (see section 5.6) of a relayer. The news- group exists only at the named relayer and its neighbors. The neighbors all pass that newsgroup to the named relayer, while the named relayer does not pass it to anyone. So the question, unless someone has some additional documentation more thorough than Son-of available, is whether we want to get into how newsgroups in the to.* hierarchy are named. The problem with doing so is that we then have to get into defining the relayer name (to use the Son-of term), which for the use of to.* groups in practice is a UUCP host name. That feels to me like wandering rather far into the weeds. I suppose we can throw in something here like "the components after 'to.' are taken to be the <path-identity> of the agent to which an article posted to that to.* newsgroup should be sent." > 42. [-1] (5.6) Obsolete control messages SHOULD NOT be sent/honoured/ > Was MUST NOT. Cf the MUST NOT for obsolete headers in USEFOR. Intentional change. MUST NOT is unwarranted. Sending them doesn't break anything. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBDLOtdr012463; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:24:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBDLOttp012462; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:24:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBDLOrJH012445 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:24:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C7094BED8 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:24:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C24B4BE43 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:24:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 43D8FE7C47; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:24:53 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 In-Reply-To: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:41:13 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:24:53 -0800 Message-ID: <87bqm7v68q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Responding to this one specifically quickly, since it may save you some time opening a broader discussion. I think you may have misunderstood the impact of my changes to the definition of proto-articles. Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > 4. [--] (3.2.2,3.4,3.8) Injection-Date can be rewritten. > A major change, which could potentially lead to loops, and has > necessitated reverting to reliance on Date header in many > situations. The whole point of introuducing Injection-Date was to let > Date reflect poster's composition time, even if not injected until weeks > later. This is now lost. I shall raise a separate thread for this issue. Injection-Date may not be rewritten (except by gateways; see below). The intention of my draft is stronger than the existing USEPRO in that not only does it prohibit injecting agents from rewriting Injection-Date, it prohibits them from accepting articles that already contain an Injection-Date header at all. See section 3.4, point 2: 2. It MUST reject any proto-article that does not have the proper mandatory header fields for a proto-article; that has Injection- Date, Injection-Info, or Xref header fields; that has a Path header field containing the "POSTED" <diag-keyword>; or that is not syntactically valid as defined by [USEFOR]. It SHOULD reject any proto-article which contains a header field deprecated for Netnews. It MAY reject any proto-article that contains trace header fields indicating that it was already injected by an injecting agent that did not add Injection-Info or Injection-Date. supported by section 3.3.1, paragraph 2: A proto-article has the same format as a normal article except that the Injection-Date, Injection-Info, and Xref header fields MUST NOT be present; the Path header field MUST NOT contain a "POSTED" <diag- keyword>; and any of the following mandatory header fields MAY be omitted: Message-ID, Date, and Path. In all other respects, a proto- article MUST be a valid Netnews article. The only place where there is a provision for removing an Injection-Date header is when gatewaying a message from one Netnews network to another, since such gatewaying involves transforming a message from an article back to a proto-article and then reinjecting it. The agent making such a transformation is, in this case, specifically required to perform the checks on the Injection-Date header that the injecting agent would otherwise be performing: In the exceptional case that an article needs to be reinjected for some reason (such as transferring an article from one Netnews to another where those networks have no relaying agreement), the posting agent doing the reinjection MUST convert the article back into a proto-article before passing it to an injecting agent (such as by renaming the Injection-Info and Injection-Date header fields and removing any Xref header field) and MUST perform the date checks on the existing Injection-Date or Date header fields that would otherwise be done by the injecting agent. Reinjecting articles may cause loops, loss of trace information, and other problems and should only be done with care and when there is no available alternative. A posting agent that does reinjection is a limited type of gateway and as such is subject to all of the requirements of an incoming gateway in addition to the requirements of a posting agent. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBDLF24v010914; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:15:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBDLF24o010913; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:15:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBDLF1OG010906 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:15:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id EB1154CD84 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:15:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDF24CD7C for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:15:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C63E6E7C47; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:15:00 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 In-Reply-To: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:41:13 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:15:00 -0800 Message-ID: <87fybjv6p7.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > This list summarizes the normative changes made between USEPRO and > Russ's document (may we call it "RUSSPRO" for the moment?). > Some are substantial and some trivial; some are obviously right and some > (IMO) obviously wrong; and some may be unintended consequences of the > new wording; many just involve changes between MUST/SHOULD/MAY. Thank you for the thorough review; you have caught several places that were simple errors on my part (multipart/related for newgroup mesages, for instance; I don't know where I got that from, as it had been my intention to mostly copy USEPRO there). I'm embarassed that there were a couple of those. I suppose that's the inherent peril of rewriting. I will try to respond to this message in depth tonight noting which of these were simple errors in my draft that I would correct as you describe and which of these changes were intentional. In several cases, you noted a change that I didn't intend to make and that I thought I *hadn't* made, and I believe it may just be that the wording moved from one place to another. I need to study those in more detail though before I can say for sure what happened. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBDKfeiJ006603; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:41:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBDKfePN006602; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:41:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBDKfbjN006596 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:41:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster*pop3*clerew*man^ac*uk) by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45806580.16600.1bf for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:41:36 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBDKfZUO013910 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:41:35 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBDKfZCD013906 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:41:35 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23862 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 Message-ID: <JA8C4p.Anu@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:41:13 GMT Lines: 337 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> This list summarizes the normative changes made between USEPRO and Russ's document (may we call it "RUSSPRO" for the moment?). Some are substantial and some trivial; some are obviously right and some (IMO) obviously wrong; and some may be unintended consequences of the new wording; many just involve changes between MUST/SHOULD/MAY. Nevertheless, if the WG decides to go with RUSSPRO, it needs to be aware of what changes it has made, and to discuss any that are in doubt. I have indicated my own opinion of each one with a score ([+1], [-1] or [00]). Except for item #4, which is important enought for a separate thread (which I shall hopefully set in motion tomorrow). 1. [-1] (2.2) <path-identity> - Possibility to use a FQDN not resolvable in the DNS. (This was a suggestion by Harald, & 1 of 2 alternatives in USEPRO) 2. [00] (3.2) <path-identity>s are case-sensitive. I was always told that some servers treated them one way and some the other, so you could not rely on either. If anything, I would have expected case-insensitive (that is what domain-names are, and what USEFOR declares <diag-keyword>s are). 3. [-1] (3.3.1,3.4,3.9.2) From not omittable in proto-article There is existing usage where the injecting agent fills in From header (not possible in NNTP, of course) 4. [--] (3.2.2,3.4,3.8) Injection-Date can be rewritten. A major change, which could potentially lead to loops, and has necessitated reverting to reliance on Date header in many situations. The whole point of introuducing Injection-Date was to let Date reflect poster's composition time, even if not injected until weeks later. This is now lost. I shall raise a separate thread for this issue. 5. [-1] (3.3.4) SHOULD trim References to keep <= 998: reduced from MUST. This could allow header lines longer than 998 octets, which is known to severely impact interoperability. It is not disputed that trimming when within the 998 limit is a MAY. 6. [00] (3.4) Injecting agents reporting rejection to user agent; was SHOULD, now merely "encouraged". All it needs is an NNTP 44x response or similar. 7. [+1] (3.4) Injecting agent SHOULD have access to list of newsgroups. So it can reject if not at least one group in Newgroups header exists This is an addition to agreed MUST keep list of moderated groups. 8. [-1] (3.4) Requirement for injecting agent to forward articles to moderator groups reduced from MUST to SHOULD. If some small latitude is needed for when the moderated group is in a crosspost to some remote and unknown hierarchy, then this should be stated explicitly. 9. [-1] (3.4,3.5) Prepending of <path-identity> to Path by injecting agent reduced from MUST to SHOULD. I would accept that prepending the <path-diagnostic> POSTED is a SHOULD. 10. [00] (3.4) Folding of Path header when length becomes excessive reduced from SHOULD to MAY. 11. [-1] (3.4) Recommendation that each injecting agent SHOULD use a consistent format for Injection-Info removed. Otherwise, the task of chasing the bad guys becomes harder. 12. [-1] (3.5) The significance of "world" and "local" in the Distribution header are no longer mentioned. We recently took care to reserve these in USEFOR, but that requires backup here to ensure the protocol fulfils that promise. 13. [+1] (3.5,3.6) Removed possibility of "aliassing out" a site where you didn't want an article to go by including it in the Path to the right of POSTED. This is probably an improvement, but it also needs to be considered alongside other conventions for "aliassing out", such as the 'cybercancel' convention which is no longer mentioned at all. 14. [+1] (3.5) Relaying agent MUST reject articles without Newgroups or Message-ID or (injection-Date or Date). Before, it was SHOULD reject for any missing mandatory header. 15. [-1] (3.5) Relaying agent MUST reject any article already already sent to it. This is impossible unless relayer keeps a history file (many don't). Nothing breaks if you don't do this, and the usual check on the Path header is normally considered sufficient. I might buy a SHOULD here, with suitable wording. 16. [-1] (3.5) Relaying agent SHOULD deal with cancel message (if it chooses to honour it) Yes, USEPRO says the same, but I suspect both are wrong, because it is serving/storage agents that should be doing this (all a pure relaying agent can do is then not to propagate it further). 17. [00] (3.5) Relaying agents SHOULD determine verified/expected source of article and construct <path-diagnostics> accordingly. USEPRO offers various MUST/SHOULD choices here for discussion. Earlier USEPROs had MUST. (It is agreed that the <path-identity> itself is MUST, in contrast to the case of injecting agents mentioned above.) 18. [-1] (3.5) No provision for >1 <path-identity> per relaying agent. I think we wrote PATH in USEFOR on the assumption that would be allowed, and Richard Clayton had an example where he needed a <path-nodot> in addition to a domain-name. I see you also removed this from the example in 3.5.1. 19. [00] (3.5) No provision to omit <path-identity> for intermediate servers on same site. Where a site consists of a large farm of servers (for incoming, outgoing and whatever else articles) there should be no need to clutter the Path header with them all (unless the site finds that helpful). USEPRO therefore relaxed the requirement, provided the outgoing one could be verified by the next site. 20. [00] (3.5) Relaying agent MAY add a new Xref header. Why might it want to do that? 21. [00] (3.6) Storage of control messages in the (pseudo) hierarchy control(.*) is a SHOULD. Is this any of our business? 21. [-1] (3.6) No mention of processing cancel messages by serving/storage agents. This is odd, given that only a serving agent can actually delete an article or otherwise deactivate it. Also, you need to deal here with the case where a cancel arrives before the article (it is covered in 5.3, but it is the serving agent's duty to implement it). 22. [00] (3.7) Removed recommendation that reading agent SHOULD have the capability to display the raw article 'as received'. 23. [-1] (3.8) Moderators merely "encouraged" (was SHOULD) to retain existing <msg-id>. That could cause problems if the original poster later wants to cancel it, or if he had forwarded it from some other source. 24. [00] (3.2.1) Removed provision (MAY) for outgoing gateway to change Content-Transfer-Encoding. Given that all other agents, from injecting agents on, are forbidden to change the Content-Transfer-Encoding (which will normally be 8bit or 7bit in Netnews except for genuine binary objects), it seems desirable to mention the exception here, where it may be necessary before the article can be passed through some email agents. 25. [+1] (4.1) Application/news-transmission no longer handles batches. That needs to be mentioned explicitly, as it is a change to an existing application type. 26. [-1] (4.2,4.3) Removed requirement that application/news-[groupinfo,checkgroups] MUST NOT be used except with relevant control messages. Application types are inherently dangerous if they are executed when they should not be. Is there any situation where these two could properly be used outside of their intended control messages? Sure, for informational purposes, or for passing by private arrangement from one newsadmin to another, but best leave it to their common sense if they want to break the rules. In any case, news-checkgroups does not make sense without its accompanying checkscope parameter. 27. [+1] (4.3) Application/news-[groupinfo,checkgroups] have a charset parameter. I think we are now agreed abut this, but with a restriction to having ASCII as a subset. 27. [-1] (5) Nothing stated regarding Newsgroups header of Control messages. Was SHOULD include the groups affected (& possibly others). Without that, control messages won't propagate to the places they are likely to be needed. 28. [00] (5) Subjects starting with 'cmsg' not accompanied by a Control header MAY be rejected. We discussed this at some stage, but I don't think we ever agreed it one way or the other. 29. [00] (5.2) Newsgroup-names MUST be checked against disallowed names before group control message is honoured. Was SHOULD. That MUST seems a bit excessive for rmgroup and checkgroups. Shouldn't it apply just to newgroup? 30. [-1] (5.2) Nothing said about content of Approved header. Surely, it SHOULD identify the person/identity/role of the issuer, and be a working email address. Even in alt.* "Approved: foo" is not really good enough. News servers are usually configured with what to expect there for each hierarchy. 31. [-1] (5.2.1) Newgroup message SHOULD include application/group-info. Was MUST (though I wouldn't take that to exclude a "For your newsgroups file:" to be scanned for - if allowing that was the intent of the SHOULD, then some rewording could cover it). That scanning is currently "MAY" which is possbly too weak. Or is it trying to allow the case where no description exists for the group (for which I would still have expected a Newgroups File entry with just the newsgroup-name, which is how a checkgroups would show it). 32. [-1] (5.2.1) Newgroup message containing other attachments in addition to news-groupinfo to be multipart/related (was multipart/mixed). I don't see what the 'relationship' is. 33. [+1] (5.2.3) Checkgroups message still contains chkscope and chksernr arguments. No change from USEPRO. I think I finally persuaded Russ this should remain so. 34. [00] (5.2.3) Checkgroups SHOULD contain sub-hierarchies excluded by chkscope, for backwards compatibility. Fine in principle, but maybe not implementable. If de.alt.* were as chaotic as alt.* (is it?) there would be no way the admins of de.* could include a defnitive list of de.alt.*. So some qualification is needed. 35. [+1] (5.2.3) Chksernr MUST increase with successive checkgroups message. Was SHOULD. 36. [00] (5.2.3) Body of checkgroups SHOULD be application/checkgroups, and otherwise SHOULD treat as if it were. Why does that SHOULD differ from the corresponding MUST in newgroups? I would have expected "SHOULD ... and otherwise MUST ...". 37. [00] (5.3) Body of cancel message MAY contain ...explanatory text. Was SHOULD. 38. [-1] (5.3) No mention of who should be in From/Sender of cancel message. Agreed it is not the person who posted the original article. USEPRO says it "should" be the person who issued the cancel. That should really be "SHOULD". 39. [-1] (5.5) The <relayer-name> in ihave and sendme control messages is now optional. It is required to be present in USEPRO and in Son-of-1036. 40. [-1] (5.5) Format of batched news in response to sendme removed. Note that this was a format 'on the wire' and was intended to be sent on the same 'wire' as the ihave and sendme messages (which would usually be a UUCP connection). Hence it is a legitimate item to standardize. Probably needs some brief mention of its compressed versions. 41. [-1] (5.5) The protocol for using the 'to.' newsgroup-name is omitted. Insofar as this protocol may still occasionally be used, it needs to be documented (as with the batch format). 42. [-1] (5.6) Obsolete control messages SHOULD NOT be sent/honoured/ Was MUST NOT. Cf the MUST NOT for obsolete headers in USEFOR. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBDIp2bG090633; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:51:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBDIp2rh090632; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:51:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBDIoweU090603 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:51:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D7514CBAF for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:50:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19AE4BEBA for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:50:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ED265E7C47; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:50:57 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Strawman consensus call, mvgroup control message In-Reply-To: <45801DE2.4F1C@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:36:02 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <45780AED.4000509@alvestrand.no> <J9ytKt.Lrr@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45801DE2.4F1C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:50:57 -0800 Message-ID: <877iwvwrxq.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > I liked the idea, but the technical details are apparently complex. > The odd effects of a manual mvgroup-emulation on GMaNe (ASRG list) > convinced me that "mvgroup" is not trivial. Yeah, most of my concerns about how this should work come from talking to larsi about doing this on Gmane. I still have a longish list of things that he'd really like the overview and storage subsystems to do so that his group and article moving works better that INN just can't handle yet. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBDFapqb061540; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:36:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBDFapIn061538; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:36:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBDFalNx061523 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:36:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GuW9m-0002wy-4K for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:36:31 +0100 Received: from d253104.dialin.hansenet.de ([80.171.253.104]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:36:30 +0100 Received: from nobody by d253104.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:36:30 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Strawman consensus call, mvgroup control message Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:36:02 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 15 Message-ID: <45801DE2.4F1C@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <45780AED.4000509@alvestrand.no> <J9ytKt.Lrr@clerew.man.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: d253104.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey wrote: > If the WG regards automatic resubscription within User Agents as > an essential feature, then that would be the end of the matter. I can't judge that. What about the proposals to extract "mvgroup" into an experimental document ? We've to update the Usefor Charter really soon now anyway, and could add this. I liked the idea, but the technical details are apparently complex. The odd effects of a manual mvgroup-emulation on GMaNe (ASRG list) convinced me that "mvgroup" is not trivial. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBD3XhRF080697; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:33:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBD3Xhvs080696; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:33:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from tertius.net.au (tertius.net.au [203.30.75.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBD3Xg4T080690 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:33:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from thorfinn@tertius.net.au) Received: from [10.76.67.226] (ppp196-249.static.internode.on.net [59.167.196.249]) by tertius.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FAA980815F; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:33:38 +1100 (EST) In-Reply-To: <457D1043.2070006@alvestrand.no> References: <457D1043.2070006@alvestrand.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <CF77CFF0-68EA-40B7-B5EC-5E1F71690024@tertius.net.au> Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Thorfinn <thorfinn@tertius.net.au> Subject: Re: Decision time: versions of -usepro Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:33:35 +1100 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> On 11 Dec 2006, at 19:01, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > OK, folks have had a little time to look at the two USEPRO versions: > > draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-06.txt > draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00.txt > > It's time to make a decision on which one the group wishes to build > upon. > I'll give three alternatives: > > 1) draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-06 > 2) draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 > 3) I have another opinion, which is..... > > Please - only respond if you have read both documents! > As usual, send mail to the chairs if you don't want to clutter up > the list, but the tally (if needed) will be by name. Been a *long* while since I posted anything related to USEFOR/USEPRO, but I have definitely been lurking and reading. I do somewhat agree that this is not an ideal time for such a poll, but that said, I've read both drafts and the diff. Prefer option (2). Thanks, Thorfinn -- <a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn/">thorfinn@tertius.net.au</a> The world is coming to an end. Please log off. -- BSD fortune file Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBCIdZLf023068; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:39:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBCIdZwL023067; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:39:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from shell.peak.org (shell.peak.org [69.59.192.81]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBCIdXY3023060 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:39:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from shell.peak.org (shell.peak.org [127.0.0.1]) by shell.peak.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kBCIdFhc009684 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:39:15 -0800 Received: from localhost (stanley@localhost) by shell.peak.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id kBCId5cx009681 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:39:15 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: shell.peak.org: stanley owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:39:05 -0800 (PST) From: stanley@peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Decision time: versions of -usepro Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612121035001.9542@shell.peak.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> 2) draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 with some suggested changes in the area of definitions ("distinguished into"?), followups, incoming gateways, constructing References, control messages, and "denial of service", which I will write up further when I get time. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBCCC9fH078336; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBCCC9FZ078335; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBCCC8kJ078324 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3^clerew#man#ac^uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 457e9c94.4732.1c1 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:12:04 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBCCC3Js026564 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:12:03 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBCCC2os026560 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:12:02 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23850 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Decision time: versions of -usepro Message-ID: <JA5r5C.HMF@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <457D1043.2070006@alvestrand.no> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:12:48 GMT Lines: 62 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <457D1043.2070006@alvestrand.no> Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes: >OK, folks have had a little time to look at the two USEPRO versions: >draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-06.txt >draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00.txt STRONGEST POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS to such an early decision. I have been reading the new draft very carefully, and have not even got to the end yet. There are many protocol changes which have not been discussed yet and which need to be explored, There are subtle changes in meaning which need to be discussed, understood and resolved. There are changes in style which, whilst not crucial, we need to form an opinion on. Ny broad reaction is that the change in order of presentation of topics is good, and I would happily incorporate most of them into USEPRO. Likewise many detailed bits and pieces. But there are is also much that I would disagree with - particularly where the reader has been given insufficient guidance as to the motivation for what has been specified, and omissions of things which really need to be said. There has been no discussion whatsoever on this new draft. The only discussion so far has been on Russ's preliminary summary of the main protocol changes. And the reason for this lack of discussion is, I imagine, that people have not had time to come to grips with the changes that have been made. It is my intention (and I am just about ready to start doing it) to start posting an analysis of the differences. But this needs doing in smallish stages that can be digested and discussed one at a time. And my intention was to start with an analysis of the protocol changes, some of which are quite significant. >It's time to make a decision on which one the group wishes to build upon. >I'll give three alternatives: >1) draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-06 >2) draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 >3) I have another opinion, which is..... I have another opinion, which is that we need time, analysis and discussion. And then probably further editions of one or both drafts enabling a properly informed choice to be made between them. >Please - only respond if you have read both documents! s/read/read, mark, learn and inwardly digest/ :-) -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBCB3a2J068786; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:03:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBCB3acH068784; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:03:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBCB3X13068768 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:03:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.1.99] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <RX6MhABu72bD@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:03:32 +0000 Message-ID: <457E8C82.7000508@isode.com> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:03:30 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: USEFOR-11 troubles References: <45704D2B.7596@xyzzy.claranet.de> <8764cvtr2x.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <8764cvtr2x.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: >Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > > >>Hi, Usefor-11 didn't make it in the first attempt, it got two [DISCUSS]: >> >> >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2253&filename=draft-ietf-usefor-usefor >> >> >>Sam proposes to use a normative reference to USEPRO. Russ Houley's >>[DISCUSS] is in a similar direction, he wants to make sure that the >>"security considerations" in USEPRO (referenced by USEFOR) are not >>lost, i.e. published in a RFC, not only in an I-D. >> >> >Reviewing USEPRO brought home to me that it's not possible to implement a >useful piece of Netnews software other than a pure article reader with >only the information in USEFOR. That doesn't necessarily mean that USEFOR >can't advance separately as an underlying format which is then used by a >later standard, but that's definitely the approach we'd have to take to >sever the documents, which means that USEFOR will need to have no >normative references to USEPRO. > >There are several that seem rather normative to me having just gone >through all of USEPRO, apart from the security considerations. Section >3.1.4 says that control messages are defined in USEPRO, section 3.1.5 >defers to USEPRO for the definition of <diag-keyword>, section 3.1.6 >defers to USEPRO for the content of the Subject header (and that reference >I think could simply be dropped, as the only place that USEPRO discusses >the Subject header is in the context of a followup and then only as a >MAY), section 3.2 states that further requirements for optional header >fields are in USEPRO, section 3.2.3 defers to USEPRO for valid control >message <verb>s, and section 3.2.12 defines the action of Supersedes in >terms of cancel control messages defined in USEPRO. > >On the surface, it's hard to argue against some or most of those being >normative references. > >Control messages are the hardest problem here, and I expect are the most >likely to prompt a DISCUSS. At the least, I think all article syntax >including acceptable values for control message <verb> and for Path ><diag-keyword> should be defined in USEFOR to make it a standalone format >document. That's actually easier than it sounds, since for control >message verbs *all* values that fit the current syntax are acceptable and >interpretation is up to the protocol being used, so there's no need to >defer to USEPRO as aggressively as USEFOR currently does. > >For <diag-keyword>, I would move the acceptable list of keywords (SEEN, >POSTED, and MISMATCH) into USEFOR with *brief* descriptions of their >meaning and leave to USEPRO only the specific instructions of how to apply >those meanings. This would also simplify writing USEPRO, since USEPRO is >laid out as a list of instructions and doesn't lend itself well to a >digression on providing additional syntax for Path <diag-keyword>s. > >The other references could be dropped or downgraded in their wording >easily except Supersedes, where the description would need to be rewritten >without reference to cancel control messages. > > I think the WG needs to see some specific text before considering moving any text from USEPRO to USEFOR. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBCAsUIf067969; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:54:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBCAsUPg067967; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:54:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBCAsTI4067958 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:54:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.1.99] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <RX6KYwBu76Ny@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:54:28 +0000 Message-ID: <457E8A61.7060802@isode.com> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:54:25 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Decision time: versions of -usepro References: <457D1043.2070006@alvestrand.no> <457DCC8E.2040103@mibsoftware.com> In-Reply-To: <457DCC8E.2040103@mibsoftware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > Harald Alvestrand wrote: > >> OK, folks have had a little time to look at the two USEPRO versions: > > December is a busy time to initiate an important poll. But rather > than just complain, I did something that can help people evaluate > the differences. Thank you! [...] Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBBLSQ94081028; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:28:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBBLSQCg081027; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:28:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from relay00.pair.com (relay00.pair.com [209.68.5.9]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id kBBLSOgr081020 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:28:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mibsoft@mibsoftware.com) Received: (qmail 43931 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2006 21:28:23 -0000 Received: from 208.111.219.51 (HELO ?192.168.2.11?) (208.111.219.51) by relay00.pair.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2006 21:28:23 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 208.111.219.51 Message-ID: <457DCD79.5050309@mibsoftware.com> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:28:25 -0500 From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Decision time: versions of -usepro References: <457D1043.2070006@alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: <457D1043.2070006@alvestrand.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Harald Alvestrand wrote: > It's time to make a decision on which one the group wishes to build upon. > I'll give three alternatives: Having looked at the comparisons I generated today, I prefer this WG proceed with draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBBLOWE7080625; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:24:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBBLOWC0080624; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:24:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from relay00.pair.com (relay00.pair.com [209.68.5.9]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id kBBLOUtY080615 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:24:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mibsoft@mibsoftware.com) Received: (qmail 42001 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2006 21:24:29 -0000 Received: from 208.111.219.51 (HELO ?192.168.2.11?) (208.111.219.51) by relay00.pair.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2006 21:24:29 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 208.111.219.51 Message-ID: <457DCC8E.2040103@mibsoftware.com> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:24:30 -0500 From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Decision time: versions of -usepro References: <457D1043.2070006@alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: <457D1043.2070006@alvestrand.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Harald Alvestrand wrote: > OK, folks have had a little time to look at the two USEPRO versions: December is a busy time to initiate an important poll. But rather than just complain, I did something that can help people evaluate the differences. 1. I took the TOC from usepro-06 and allbery-00 and matched up the sections as best I could. (See below.) 2. I split the documents into individual files, one per section. (For allbery-00, I had to depaginate first, which consisted of removing 5 lines per page, using a perl script.) 3. Then I ran a script which cat'ed the usepro-06 section(s) and to a file, then the allbery-00 section(s) to a second file. Then I ran a diff, and appended the result to a file. The result is linked below. A little rough, but you can see the differences almost side by side, at least for the purposes of choosing. It may or may not be useful for sparking discussion. http://www.mibsoftware.com/userkt/usefor/diff-usepro06-allbery00.txt Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBB81EAS075654; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:01:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBB81EqF075653; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:01:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBB81DXe075647 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:01:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389782596CD for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:57:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15370-04 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:57:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A4F2596CA for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:57:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <457D1043.2070006@alvestrand.no> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:01:07 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Decision time: versions of -usepro Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> OK, folks have had a little time to look at the two USEPRO versions: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-06.txt draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00.txt It's time to make a decision on which one the group wishes to build upon. I'll give three alternatives: 1) draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-06 2) draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 3) I have another opinion, which is..... Please - only respond if you have read both documents! As usual, send mail to the chairs if you don't want to clutter up the list, but the tally (if needed) will be by name. Harald Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBAKAA6v097261; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:10:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kBAKAAG9097260; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:10:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kBAKA8M3097251 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:10:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB172596AF; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:06:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26310-06; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:06:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93EC32580E1; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:06:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:09:57 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> To: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf-usefor@imc.org, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Subject: Re: Responses from the USEFOR WG Chairs on IESG DISCUSSes Message-ID: <6FA35B029E3DC806926FF7CF@[192.168.1.103]> In-Reply-To: <457983A7.3080907@mibsoftware.com> References: <45795ED3.7030402@alvestrand.no> <457983A7.3080907@mibsoftware.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.6 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> --On 8. desember 2006 10:24 -0500 "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> wrote: > > Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> Greetings, >> >> we (the chairs) hvave discussed the IESG feedback on >> draft-ietf-usefor-usefor. >> >> There are two DISCUSS comments that we'd like to discuss further on this >> document. >> >> Sam Hartman filed this: >> >> >>> First, the reference to draft-ietf-usefor-usepro needs to be >>> normative. I don't think you can construct an article without >>> following advice related to path, injection-*, and control from that >>> document. Parsing these fields without usepro is similarly difficult. >> >> >> The WG had a debate specifically about whether there should be a >> normative reference to USEPRO, and decided that there should not be one. >> The WG's belief is that the -usefor document contains enough information >> to write software that parses an Usenet article and says whether or not >> it conforms to the format. > > 1. Can we clarify how the "WG decided there should not be" a normative > reference? Note: Every single version of the -usefor document since -00 has had USEPRO as an informative reference. WG Last Call on USEFOR, reported June 15: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg03158.html> Note the second question - on whether or not to send it to the IESG. I see that at this time, I assumed that there would be a REF hold on USEPRO (which would have been the case had the reference been normative). Second WG Last Call on USEFOR, reported Sept 15: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg03431.html> During this Last Call, we had an explicit discussion of this issue starting September 9 of this year, subject line "Is the USEFOR->USEPRO dependency normative?". I did not see any consensus of the WG that there should be a change, but very few people spoke up at all at this time. I have not been able to find a previous discussion of the issue using the keywords "USEFOR" and "normative". Harald Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB9BSAlH008334; Sat, 9 Dec 2006 04:28:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB9BSAnb008332; Sat, 9 Dec 2006 04:28:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from phobos.pfm-mainz.de (deimos.babel.de [145.253.109.90]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB9BS7hv008272 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 9 Dec 2006 04:28:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rbabel@babylon.pfm-mainz.de) Received: from babylon.pfm-mainz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by deimos.babel.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689FDFF8FE; Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:28:01 +0100 (CET) Received: by message-id.pfm-mainz.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6A4802BF406; Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:27:39 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <457983A7.3080907@mibsoftware.com> From: rbabel@babylon.pfm-mainz.de (Ralph Babel) To: iesg@ietf.org, ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Responses from the USEFOR WG Chairs on IESG DISCUSSes Message-Id: <20061209112739.6A4802BF406@message-id.pfm-mainz.de> Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:27:39 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > 1. Can we clarify how the "WG decided there > should not be" a normative reference? > > I and the USEPRO editor, two of 7 participants in the > last call poll, argued that USEFOR must wait until USEPRO. The way I read <44917166.404@alvestrand.no> ... http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg03158.html ..., you can probably add Richard and me. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB95ClIr075631; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:12:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB95Cl3d075630; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:12:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB95CkSR075614 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:12:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3^clerew&man#ac^uk) by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 457a45cc.c8c8.a7 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 9 Dec 2006 05:12:44 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB95ChSk014370 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 9 Dec 2006 05:12:43 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB95ChgR014362 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 9 Dec 2006 05:12:43 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23840 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Strawman consensus call, mvgroup control message Message-ID: <J9ytKt.Lrr@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <45780AED.4000509@alvestrand.no> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:22:05 GMT Lines: 50 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <45780AED.4000509@alvestrand.no> Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes: >As far as I can tell from the list traffic: >- Charles supports the inclusion of a "mvgroup" control message in >-usefor-usepro >- All other speakers do not support this inclusion >- Nobody has any big objection to a separate experimental document >specifying such a message, despite the fact that several people doubt >that it will be useful or adopted. I think the discussion has been useful in highlighting the implementation problems and the critical issues. Essentially, it can be implemented two ways: 1. Keep both groups in existence during the overlap period. 2. Alias the old to the new (or just possibly vice versa). That has the benefit that users need to be subscribed to only one of them (preferably the new), but it does require a liberal interpretation of 'aliassing'. It seems that the way aliassing is currently done in INN makes it extremely difficult to implement that way, though it works fine in CNEWS. We have no reports of how other servers would be affected. There are some details concerning what you put in the Xrefs header that need attention. But the worst that happens if you get that wrong is that users may see the same article in both groups instead of just the first one they read it in (but maybe only for for articles posted before the mvgroup). That seems fixable. The real crunch is whether User Agents need to be upgraded. The intention of the proposal as in the present USEPRO was that it would work with existing User Agents, with the proviso that users would need to subscribe manually to the new group and maybe unsubscribe from the old, and that plenty of announcements, discussion and advice would be posted in the group(s) to be sure they were aware of this. If the WG regards automatic resubscription within User Agents as an essential feature, then that would be the end of the matter. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8IX26t010016; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:33:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB8IX2pa010014; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:33:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8IWwlM009983 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:32:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.1.99] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <RXmv2QAoLkHu@rufus.isode.com>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 18:32:57 +0000 Message-ID: <4579AFD3.7020802@isode.com> Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:32:51 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> CC: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Responses from the USEFOR WG Chairs on IESG DISCUSSes References: <45795ED3.7030402@alvestrand.no> <457983A7.3080907@mibsoftware.com> In-Reply-To: <457983A7.3080907@mibsoftware.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > Harald Alvestrand wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> we (the chairs) hvave discussed the IESG feedback on >> draft-ietf-usefor-usefor. >> >> There are two DISCUSS comments that we'd like to discuss further on this >> document. >> >> Sam Hartman filed this: >> >>> First, the reference to draft-ietf-usefor-usepro needs to be >>> normative. I don't think you can construct an article without >>> following advice related to path, injection-*, and control from that >>> document. Parsing these fields without usepro is similarly difficult. >> >> The WG had a debate specifically about whether there should be a >> normative reference to USEPRO, and decided that there should not be one. >> The WG's belief is that the -usefor document contains enough >> information to write software that parses an Usenet article and says >> whether or not it conforms to the format. > > 1. Can we clarify how the "WG decided there should not be" a normative > reference? > > I and the USEPRO editor, two of 7 participants in the last call poll, > argued that USEFOR must wait until USEPRO. "Must wait until USEPRO" is not the same thing as "USEFOR must have a normative reference to USEPRO". There is a consensus to delay publication of USEFOR until after USEPRO is done (if it ever gets done). The "if it ever gets done" is an important part. > My objection was more based on > the observation that this WG was not likely to get the format settled > correctly until USEPRO was close to being finished. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8HbJK2003589; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:37:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB8HbJpx003588; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:37:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8HbGmM003578 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:37:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C5D5E4C9E9 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 09:37:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990A34C412 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 09:37:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8E691E7C63; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 09:37:15 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document In-Reply-To: <J9ynLA.F8x@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:12:46 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r3tC.70D@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhncxzh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9sw88.3qo@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87bqmi9pkj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9v1Mw.IJL@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87veko3kp5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9wsu0.20x@clerew.man.ac.uk> <8764cnwq6q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9ynLA.F8x@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:37:15 -0800 Message-ID: <873b7qe1bo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> Well, I as a news administrator don't carry cn.*, so I personally >> haven't dealt with it one way or the other. The code that maintains >> the ftp.isc.org list has a more specific permissions configuration than >> news servers often enforce that prevents cn.bbs.* checkgroups from >> affecting anything outside of cn.bbs.* even if they're interpreted >> protocol-wise as doing so. > Ah! So you effectively have a private hack in the ftp.isc.org code that > does essentally what the checkscope parameter is trying to do. And it > would seem that anyone who currently does carry cn.* must have > implemented a similar hack also, or else he ignores the cn.bbs.* > checkgroups. > So it checkscope remains in the draft, and cn.bbs.* can be persuaded to > include it, then all the people currently using such a hack could take > it out and implement checkscope instead. Well, no, I have a real authorization check in the ftp.isc.org code that says that the people authorized to send checkgroups for cn.bbs.* aren't allowed to affect the rest of cn.* *even if they claim to want to*, which isn't replacable by the chkscope parameter. But otherwise, yes, I see what you're getting at and it's fairly convincing to me. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8HCCZV000673; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB8HCCrm000667; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8HCBpx000660 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3&clerew$man*ac$uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 45799cea.1528a.165 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:10 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB8HC567027418 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB8HC5Tg027415 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23837 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message Message-ID: <J9yr4M.Iyq@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com> <oCCZWbETSVdFFAjY@highwayman.com> <J9v32x.K18@clerew.man.ac.uk> <5ke9fsIjOwdFFAzj@highwayman.com> <J9wwy1.6B8@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87ac1zwqay.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:29:10 GMT Lines: 31 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <87ac1zwqay.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >> Yes, full fledged servers normally retain articles from removed groups >> until they have all expired by natural means. >Eh? INN certainly doesn't. I noticed that in the draft as well and was >very perplexed by it (and took it out of my version, since I've not heard >of a news server doing that). CNEWS has been doing it for years (and BNEWS before it, I imagine). I am surprised that INN doesn't do it, and would recommend that it did (it is not hard). And for our draft it should be a SHOULD. It could be very handy if a newsgroup gets removed by accident. >Once the group is removed, it's removed. You can't select it, read it, >look at it, anything. Naturally, you disable posting, and even ihaving. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8HCDSW000675; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB8HCDKa000674; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8HCBKJ000661 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3&clerew^man&ac*uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 45799ceb.6ecd.d4 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:11 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB8HC4Up027402 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:04 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB8HC4wX027396 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:04 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23835 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document Message-ID: <J9ynLA.F8x@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r3tC.70D@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhncxzh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9sw88.3qo@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87bqmi9pkj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9v1Mw.IJL@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87veko3kp5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9wsu0.20x@clerew.man.ac.uk> <8764cnwq6q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:12:46 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <8764cnwq6q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Well, I as a news administrator don't carry cn.*, so I personally haven't >dealt with it one way or the other. The code that maintains the >ftp.isc.org list has a more specific permissions configuration than news >servers often enforce that prevents cn.bbs.* checkgroups from affecting >anything outside of cn.bbs.* even if they're interpreted protocol-wise as >doing so. Ah! So you effectively have a private hack in the ftp.isc.org code that does essentally what the checkscope parameter is trying to do. And it would seem that anyone who currently does carry cn.* must have implemented a similar hack also, or else he ignores the cn.bbs.* checkgroups. So it checkscope remains in the draft, and cn.bbs.* can be persuaded to include it, then all the people currently using such a hack could take it out and implement checkscope instead. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8HC9Kk000645; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB8HC9Se000644; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8HC7Is000618 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster*pop3#clerew#man&ac&uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 45799ce6.d272.3e for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:06 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB8HC5Yv027410 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB8HC5HG027407 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23836 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document Message-ID: <J9ynyA.Fnu@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r6G8.9qp@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87d56vv9sx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:20:34 GMT Lines: 34 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <87d56vv9sx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> Of more concern to me is the behaviour of NNTP agents which do not send >> control messages to users who ask for messages in some particular group. >That's the way that all widely used news servers behave and there's years >of existing practice behind that. I'm going to take a lot of convincing >to recommend something else. Sure. It is too entrenched to change now. I was bemoaning that it ever got like that (as was Frank, I think). >That's far and away the lesser of two evils, IMO. And there I disagree with you. I think if I were doing things again from scratch I would have the control messages visible in their own groups, with an implict crosspost to the control.* groups as well. And then have a Distribution 'control' for the benefit of people who did not want to see them. But that is not a serious proposal for now (though it might be if ever we try to standardize NOCEMs). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8HCAbd000658; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB8HCATr000657; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8HC9OF000622 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3&clerew$man#ac$uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 45799ce8.5fbc.d2 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:08 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB8HC7c3027436 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:07 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB8HC6Fb027433 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:06 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23839 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: ASCII Message-ID: <J9ysxs.KwH@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r6G8.9qp@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87d56vv9sx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <457884B7.1444@xyzzy.claranet.de> <8764cn752c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:08:16 GMT Lines: 47 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <8764cn752c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: >> Russ Allbery wrote: >>> Anyone have a suggestion on how one words "MUST have ASCII >>> as a subset" in fairly precise language? >> | A charset is said to be "ASCII compatible" if it encodes >> | the Unicode points u+0000 up to u+007F as the usual octets >> | &x00 up to &x7F, and either uses these octets for no other >> | purpose (e.g. Latin-1, windows-1252, and UTF-8), or offers >> | clear indications when they are used as (a part of) other >> | encodings (e.g. UTF-7, SCSU, and TBD). I don't think you ought to be mentioning Unicode when defining "MUST have ASCII as a subset". What you need is a code wherein the octets 0-127 always stand for the usual ASCII characters. UTF-8 and the ISO-8859 series are the obvious examples. I think somebody said the EUC ones were also. >We do need to support SJIS, though. I thought that some of the Asian >encodings like that do shift between ASCII and non-ASCII with escape >sequences and use ASCII characters within the escaped portion. But I'm >not sure. I don't think you can support anything using escapes, though. Essentially, when a 'checkgroups' arrives, you take each line, delete the 1st TAB and everything after (but take note of any "(Moderated)" at the end. Then you compare what you have got with what is in your active file, and inform the newsadmin of any discrepancies, even offering to fix them for him. That needs the newsgroup-names to be exactly the same as stored in the active file. I doubt anyone using strange charsets in a checkgroups has done anything that would break that behaviour, which is built into most servers. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8HCAOT000646; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB8HC9eY000643; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8HC7SL000619 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3&clerew*man*ac^uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 45799ce6.b551.4f for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:06 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB8HC66s027428 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:06 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB8HC6nN027423 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:12:06 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23838 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message Message-ID: <J9ysGJ.KD6@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87hcw7vaeo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:57:55 GMT Lines: 76 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <87hcw7vaeo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >Except at least with INN, you can't post to an aliased group (which makes >sense and seems like the right semantics for aliasing in general to me), >so if the new group is aliased to the old group, users won't be able to >post except by going into the old group and posting there. That seems >less than ideal. ... Yes, it is clear that the aliassing in INN is much more restrictive than in CNEWS, making full implementation of mvgroup much harder. >>> For example, unless you rewrite the Newsgroups header of the old >>> articles or add a Followup-To header... >> Absolutely not! Otherwise threads are going to get hopelessly confused, >> and you break the fundamental rule of Usenet ... >So instead you create a bunch of messages that can't be replied to without >a bunch of manual fiddling with the headers, which sparks user confusion. Not at all. Both groups MUST remain postable during the overlap, or else there is indeed utter confusion. Keeping both groups in existence is one way to do it, but an alias system that continues to allow posting is better, on systems where it can be implemented that way. >> So once a thread starts, it remains in its original group (unless >> followups are manually changed). Some users may believe they are reading >> it in newgroup, and some in oldgroup (and may be slightly confused if >> they inspect the Newsgroup header too closely). But whichever is the >> case, if you followup it will appear to you to be in your group and to >> other Usenet users in whichever group their own server has put it in. >I don't understand what you mean here. If you follow up, you'll copy the >Newsgroups header field from the predecessor into the Newsgroups header >field of your follow-up, and then posting that message will fail because >you're trying to post to an aliased group. ... Only on INN, which is why INN cannot implement it that way. >> Yes it does, because at the least it gives you the same as the previous >> system, but with the added benefit that newsadmins are more likely to >> accept both halves of the change if it comes as one command, >I don't think I believe this. If news administrators are acting on >control messages, there's no reason why they'd act on the newgroup and not >the rmgroup unless they specifically configured their server that way, But sadly it seems a lot of them ARE configured that way. Quite illogical, but since when have news admins ever behaved logically :-( ? >> Old articles get preserved either way, just that you may have to examine >> both groups to find them if your server has done the minimal >> implementation. >If you implement mvgroup as newgroup and rmgroup, old messages are not >preserved. No problem it there is a suitable delay between the newgroup and the rmgroup (as USEPRO required), so that most oldgroup stuff will have expired by then (and on CNEWS will aftually be kept until the normal expiry time anyway). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8FOTSR088230; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:24:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB8FOTh5088228; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:24:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from relay00.pair.com (relay00.pair.com [209.68.5.9]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id kB8FOQaM088219 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:24:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mibsoft@mibsoftware.com) Received: (qmail 19379 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2006 15:24:25 -0000 Received: from 216.37.253.212 (HELO ?192.168.2.11?) (216.37.253.212) by relay00.pair.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2006 15:24:25 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 216.37.253.212 Message-ID: <457983A7.3080907@mibsoftware.com> Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:24:23 -0500 From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> CC: iesg@ietf.org, ietf-usefor@imc.org, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Subject: Re: Responses from the USEFOR WG Chairs on IESG DISCUSSes References: <45795ED3.7030402@alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: <45795ED3.7030402@alvestrand.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Harald Alvestrand wrote: > Greetings, > > we (the chairs) hvave discussed the IESG feedback on > draft-ietf-usefor-usefor. > > There are two DISCUSS comments that we'd like to discuss further on this > document. > > Sam Hartman filed this: > > >>First, the reference to draft-ietf-usefor-usepro needs to be >>normative. I don't think you can construct an article without >>following advice related to path, injection-*, and control from that >>document. Parsing these fields without usepro is similarly difficult. > > > The WG had a debate specifically about whether there should be a > normative reference to USEPRO, and decided that there should not be one. > The WG's belief is that the -usefor document contains enough information > to write software that parses an Usenet article and says whether or not > it conforms to the format. 1. Can we clarify how the "WG decided there should not be" a normative reference? I and the USEPRO editor, two of 7 participants in the last call poll, argued that USEFOR must wait until USEPRO. My objection was more based on the observation that this WG was not likely to get the format settled correctly until USEPRO was close to being finished. While I cannot speak for the other participants in the poll, most of the desire seemed to be that "We want a document, some document, out to IETF last call" and not "USEFOR is set, we have confidence that we can write companion documents with this." The current INN maintainer has spent intense hours reviewing the draft since the poll was taken and is now on record in <8764cvtr2x.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>, Dec 1, with "There are several [sections] that seem rather normative to me having just gone through all of USEPRO, apart from the security considerations." 2. I agree with the sentiment that you cannot construct a useful article without what will be in USEPRO. You can construct a conforming article, however. Are Internet Message RFCs much different in this respect? 3. "Parsing" is an ambiguous term. USEFOR is complete enough that you can determine compliance of an article. So it can be "parsed" in that sense. But you cannot determine that the article was constructed following USEPRO. I think this creates an attractive nuisance problem that I don't recall being discussed in the WG.... Will releasing USEFOR, without the advice from USEPRO, lead to people following the syntax, but doing their own thing, e.g. with path diagnostics, leading to incompatibilities in the wild? This seems like a real danger to me. As expected, there was much WG discussion about backwards compatibility with some of these features, and there were some areas with very limited flexibility. If people usurp those methods, creating USEFOR-compliant, but non-interoperating implementations due to the lack of guidance of USEPRO (or some early draft of USEPRO), then there are not going to be easy alternatives. Do others think this is a danger? Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8ClOUa068758; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 05:47:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB8ClOer068757; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 05:47:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB8ClMOk068748 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 05:47:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 835AE2580C6; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:44:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31693-01; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:43:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A64625808E; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:43:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45795ED3.7030402@alvestrand.no> Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:47:15 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: iesg@ietf.org Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Subject: Responses from the USEFOR WG Chairs on IESG DISCUSSes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Greetings, we (the chairs) hvave discussed the IESG feedback on draft-ietf-usefor-usefor. There are two DISCUSS comments that we'd like to discuss further on this document. Sam Hartman filed this: > First, the reference to draft-ietf-usefor-usepro needs to be > normative. I don't think you can construct an article without > following advice related to path, injection-*, and control from that > document. Parsing these fields without usepro is similarly difficult. The WG had a debate specifically about whether there should be a normative reference to USEPRO, and decided that there should not be one. The WG's belief is that the -usefor document contains enough information to write software that parses an Usenet article and says whether or not it conforms to the format. We believe that the construction of the content of those fields is not a normative reference for the format - any more than the RIR allocation rules for IP addresses forms a normative reference for the definition of the IP header. If there are specific instances of parsing an Usenet message (as opposed to acting on the content of a message) that you think is difficult without USEPRO, we'd like to have the details, so that we can discuss the specifics. > We received last call comments about the subsetting of RFC 2822 > messages. Very late, we realized that the real issue is not that > these requirements are difficult for new posting agents, but that they > are difficult when a email message is injected into usenet. First, I > think more discussion of whether that is the right approach for > gateways is needed. It is definitely not the right approach. A normal email message will not be a valid Usenet message - if only because it lacks a Path: header and a Newsgroups: header. The WG has discussed the problem of email-to-news gateways, and made an explicit decision in at least one other case to exclude wording that would seem to be normative for such gateways. We believe that this problem is out of scope for this document, and is (as we read the charter) out of scope for the present charter of the USEFOR WG. However, we have received a proposal for clarifying text about the relationship between the USEFOR format and the mail format; we'll consider this for inclusion at the end of section 2.1 of the draft: >This draft places additional restrictions on RFC2822 message format rules, >in order to be compatible with deployed NetNews agents. >An entity that generates messages compliant with RFC2822 might not always >generate messages compliant with this specification, although certainly a >single code-base can generate messages according to both sets of rules if >desired. >Gatewaying between email and news is not part of this specification, >but we note that such a gateway would in all cases have to do more than >just copying the message. Ensuring that the message satisfies the >constraints here would be part of the job of such a gateway. Would this satisfy the DISCUSSant on this point? Back to the DISCUSS text: > Second, regardless of what we say here, it will > be reasonably common for messages to be injected that do not meet > these requirements. In the interests of interoperability we need to > discuss what problems can result and make recommendations for liberal > receivers that minimize interoperability problems. The WG discussed the problem of illegal messages and decided that it was not possible or reasonable to specify handling of messages that do not conform to this syntax in the syntax document. This would also violate long-standing practice in, for instance, RFC 2822. There is a document on the WG's document list - USEAGE - where such considerations would be appropriate. (However, note that the state of the WG is not such that this document will be finished soon, if at all. See later note.) > The Security Considerations say: > > > > Further security considerations are discussed in > > [I-D.ietf-usefor-usepro]. > > > There is some really good information in this document. Can we make > sure that it gets published? I would like to see an RFC referenced, > not an Internet-Draft, when this document becomes an RFC. This is one of multiple references that really reflect the fact that you can't make a working Usenet system with just the Usenet article format. As discussed above, the WG decided against making the reference normative - one purpose of this was to make it possible to publish the USEFOR document without waiting for USEPRO. If there are specific concerns for USEPRO that you wish moved into USEFOR, we can discuss that - but making the publication of USEFOR depend on the publication of USEPRO would definitely be overriding a consensus of the working group. About the state of the working group: This group is very low energy. The number of active participants is probably less than 10, and the number of constructive active participants less than that. A few tens of people follow the mailing list and occasionally make comments. The process of getting from a draft that was "nearly finished" for USEFOR to the present state took 1.5 years; the total process since the start of the working group has been more than 9 years. We have just started a process of deciding if a change of editors for USEPRO is warranted; once that is settled, the process of making USEPRO ready for publication could easily take another year. There is also a grave danger that the last few constructive active participants will just give up and go away, leaving us with no finished USEPRO document at all. USEAGE is in even greater danger of that happening, since it is later in the WG's schedule, and depends on USEPRO finishing. In this context, we would very much like to prove to the WG that it is possible to finish a work item and get it published. We need all the encouragement we can get. Harald and Alexey Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB84I2Pf014550; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:18:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB84I2Ms014549; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:18:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB84I08X014542 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:18:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC6692596D5; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 05:14:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19717-04; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 05:14:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE9C2596BE; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 05:14:37 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 05:17:53 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: ASCII (was: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document) Message-ID: <F1ECDACC55829DB9A094C957@[192.168.1.103]> In-Reply-To: <457884B7.1444@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r6G8.9qp@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87d56vv9sx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <457884B7.1444@xyzzy.claranet.de> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.6 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Strawman, idea. Disregard if nonsense. Perhaps we should define the operation we want to succeed instead? For instance, say that: There is news software that will ignore the charset parameter and parse the message as if it was US-ASCII. Therefore, the result of reading each octet of the message and setting bit 8 to zero MUST be a valid message specifying the same newsgroup names, as long as all newsgroup names are in ASCII. There is no requirement that the newsgroup descriptions survive this treatment. Examples of charsets that allow the message to satisfy this constraint are (for example) UTF-8, ISO-8859-1, Shift-JIS and ISO-2022-JP. Examples of charsets that do not allow the message to satisfy this constraint are EBCDIC, UTF-16 and ISO-646-NO. --On 7. desember 2006 22:16 +0100 Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote: > > Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Anyone have a suggestion on how one words "MUST have ASCII >> as a subset" in fairly precise language? > >| A charset is said to be "ASCII compatible" if it encodes >| the Unicode points u+0000 up to u+007F as the usual octets >| &x00 up to &x7F, and either uses these octets for no other >| purpose (e.g. Latin-1, windows-1252, and UTF-8), or offers >| clear indications when they are used as (a part of) other >| encodings (e.g. UTF-7, SCSU, and TBD). > > TBD needs to be some CJK charset. I'm almost sure that you > don't want SCSU, UTF-1, or UTF-7, and that could simplify it: > >| A charset is said to contain US-ASCII as subset if it encodes >| the Unicode points u+0000 up to u+007F as the usual octets >| &x00 up to &x7F, and uses these octets for no other purpose. > > Frank > > > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB82OUY0004950; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:24:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB82OUo4004949; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:24:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (netblock-68-183-106-173.brandx.net [68.183.106.173] (may be forged)) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB82OTca004943 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:24:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MAGDBU78R40022XR@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:24:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1165544666; h=Date: From:Subject:MIME-version:Content-type; b=c1IiCYhe82/4qieJcg4FFg9v5 Nc2V1c95PuomT2qaKZL7PBmI/+ngE+xwX1xpO39HKKBi2Q0AqKc8LiE8DX/og== Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MACW5WNLR400005H@mauve.mrochek.com>; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:24:24 -0800 (PST) Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org Message-id: <01MAGDBTHKT200005H@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:21:28 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: ASCII In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:07:12 -0800" <87slfrf8dr.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r6G8.9qp@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87d56vv9sx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <457884B7.1444@xyzzy.claranet.de> <8764cn752c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <01MAGBSAIL7U00005H@mauve.mrochek.com> <87slfrf8dr.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> > Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> writes: > > However, all of these charsets are ASCII-compatible. Examples of > > charsets that aren't ASCII-compatible are any UTF-16 variant, any of the > > EBCDIC charsets, and the old national variant ASCII sets. > > (What can I say, I've written a lot of charset conversion code.) > I think that ASCII-compatible is what we actually need. Basically, we > have to be assured that the newsgroup *names*, as opposed to the > descriptions, if read by a naive news server with no knowledge of > character sets, will still be correct. As long as that condition is met, > it doesn't matter what weird stuff is going on in the descriptions as long > as the character set is properly tagged. > Maybe we should just say that rather than taking about the character set > properties. Seems reasonable - and I can't say that having a protocol specific discussion of charset terminology and characteristics thrills me. Ned Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB827ECk003159; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:07:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB827EQo003158; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:07:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB827DOn003152 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:07:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8184B4C461 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:07:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616774C30C for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:07:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 55F28E7F27; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:07:12 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: ASCII In-Reply-To: <01MAGBSAIL7U00005H@mauve.mrochek.com> (Ned Freed's message of "Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:18:22 -0800 (PST)") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r6G8.9qp@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87d56vv9sx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <457884B7.1444@xyzzy.claranet.de> <8764cn752c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <01MAGBSAIL7U00005H@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:07:12 -0800 Message-ID: <87slfrf8dr.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> writes: > However, all of these charsets are ASCII-compatible. Examples of > charsets that aren't ASCII-compatible are any UTF-16 variant, any of the > EBCDIC charsets, and the old national variant ASCII sets. > (What can I say, I've written a lot of charset conversion code.) I think that ASCII-compatible is what we actually need. Basically, we have to be assured that the newsgroup *names*, as opposed to the descriptions, if read by a naive news server with no knowledge of character sets, will still be correct. As long as that condition is met, it doesn't matter what weird stuff is going on in the descriptions as long as the character set is properly tagged. Maybe we should just say that rather than taking about the character set properties. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB81efNq001206; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:40:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB81efUZ001205; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:40:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (netblock-68-183-106-173.brandx.net [68.183.106.173] (may be forged)) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB81edv5001199 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:40:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MAGBSBC6FK002OQ9@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:40:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1165542027; h=Date: From:Subject:MIME-version:Content-type; b=GJjuCy6jQzvkajG7rAknFdcb/ MA+5tlH9dYtK4inCNqnLynR3aIzfaDbVIIj3lx40sKzy7y4o6Ti3sYzjzf+fw== Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MACW5WNLR400005H@mauve.mrochek.com>; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:40:25 -0800 (PST) Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org Message-id: <01MAGBSAIL7U00005H@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:18:22 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: ASCII In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:46:03 -0800" <8764cn752c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r6G8.9qp@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87d56vv9sx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <457884B7.1444@xyzzy.claranet.de> <8764cn752c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> > Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > > Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Anyone have a suggestion on how one words "MUST have ASCII > >> as a subset" in fairly precise language? > > | A charset is said to be "ASCII compatible" if it encodes > > | the Unicode points u+0000 up to u+007F as the usual octets > > | &x00 up to &x7F, and either uses these octets for no other > > | purpose (e.g. Latin-1, windows-1252, and UTF-8), or offers > > | clear indications when they are used as (a part of) other > > | encodings (e.g. UTF-7, SCSU, and TBD). > > TBD needs to be some CJK charset. I'm almost sure that you > > don't want SCSU, UTF-1, or UTF-7, and that could simplify it: How about EUC-JP as an example? > > | A charset is said to contain US-ASCII as subset if it encodes > > | the Unicode points u+0000 up to u+007F as the usual octets > > | &x00 up to &x7F, and uses these octets for no other purpose. > We do need to support SJIS, though. Shift-JIS charsets (there are several different ones) do not in general have ASCII as a subset because there are two-octet sequences in them where the first octet is >127 but the second is <127. If memory serves, the various EUC charsets all have ASCII as a subset. > I thought that some of the Asian > encodings like that do shift between ASCII and non-ASCII with escape > sequences and use ASCII characters within the escaped portion. But I'm > not sure. Now you're talking about the various charsets based on ISO 2022. Most if not of these are 7bit and use various escape sequences to switch between single byte US-ASCII and some other large coded character set encoded as two successive US-ASCII characters. These clearly don't have US-ASCII as a subset. However, all of these charsets are ASCII-compatible. Examples of charsets that aren't ASCII-compatible are any UTF-16 variant, any of the EBCDIC charsets, and the old national variant ASCII sets. (What can I say, I've written a lot of charset conversion code.) Ned Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7MXVV8078642; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:33:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB7MXVFE078641; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:33:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7MXTux078632 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:33:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GsRny-0007tk-Vw for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:33:27 +0100 Received: from du-017a-093.access.de.clara.net ([213.221.75.93]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:33:26 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-017a-093.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:33:26 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: ASCII Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:31:51 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 13 Message-ID: <45789657.251F@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r6G8.9qp@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87d56vv9sx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <457884B7.1444@xyzzy.claranet.de> <8764cn752c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-017a-093.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: >>| A charset is said to contain US-ASCII as subset if it encodes >>| the Unicode points u+0000 up to u+007F as the usual octets >>| &x00 up to &x7F, and uses these octets for no other purpose. > We do need to support SJIS, though. Tricky, maybe "and allows no other encoding for these code points". That should eliminate UTF-7. If SJIS is in, then UTF-1 is also in. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7Lkwx3072591; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:46:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB7Lkw0T072590; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:46:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7Lkvvi072581 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:46:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 64CDF4CD80 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:46:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3474C808 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:46:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 22223E7B7D; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:46:04 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: ASCII In-Reply-To: <457884B7.1444@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:16:39 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r6G8.9qp@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87d56vv9sx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <457884B7.1444@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:46:03 -0800 Message-ID: <8764cn752c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Anyone have a suggestion on how one words "MUST have ASCII >> as a subset" in fairly precise language? > | A charset is said to be "ASCII compatible" if it encodes > | the Unicode points u+0000 up to u+007F as the usual octets > | &x00 up to &x7F, and either uses these octets for no other > | purpose (e.g. Latin-1, windows-1252, and UTF-8), or offers > | clear indications when they are used as (a part of) other > | encodings (e.g. UTF-7, SCSU, and TBD). > TBD needs to be some CJK charset. I'm almost sure that you > don't want SCSU, UTF-1, or UTF-7, and that could simplify it: > | A charset is said to contain US-ASCII as subset if it encodes > | the Unicode points u+0000 up to u+007F as the usual octets > | &x00 up to &x7F, and uses these octets for no other purpose. We do need to support SJIS, though. I thought that some of the Asian encodings like that do shift between ASCII and non-ASCII with escape sequences and use ASCII characters within the escaped portion. But I'm not sure. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7LHjd7070180; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:17:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB7LHjsm070179; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:17:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7LHiUR070173 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:17:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GsQcc-0004EW-1G for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:17:38 +0100 Received: from du-017a-093.access.de.clara.net ([213.221.75.93]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:17:38 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-017a-093.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:17:38 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: ASCII (was: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:16:39 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 21 Message-ID: <457884B7.1444@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r6G8.9qp@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87d56vv9sx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-017a-093.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > Anyone have a suggestion on how one words "MUST have ASCII > as a subset" in fairly precise language? | A charset is said to be "ASCII compatible" if it encodes | the Unicode points u+0000 up to u+007F as the usual octets | &x00 up to &x7F, and either uses these octets for no other | purpose (e.g. Latin-1, windows-1252, and UTF-8), or offers | clear indications when they are used as (a part of) other | encodings (e.g. UTF-7, SCSU, and TBD). TBD needs to be some CJK charset. I'm almost sure that you don't want SCSU, UTF-1, or UTF-7, and that could simplify it: | A charset is said to contain US-ASCII as subset if it encodes | the Unicode points u+0000 up to u+007F as the usual octets | &x00 up to &x7F, and uses these octets for no other purpose. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7IZfej049985; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:35:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB7IZfk6049984; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:35:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7IZesC049978 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:35:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 99BB44CE2C for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:35:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8E14CB35 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:35:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 75AF9E7B51; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:35:40 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 submitted In-Reply-To: <J9rLBw.49D@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:40:44 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <87r6vi3bw3.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rLBw.49D@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:35:40 -0800 Message-ID: <878xhjv9j7.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> * I tried to remove all references to policies, hierarchy administrators, >> and other terms for the organization of Usenet. This is partly because >> I felt they were out of scope for the protocol and partly because I >> tried to make the document general to any Netnews network and avoid any >> statements specific or unique to Usenet. Such matters can be discussed >> in USEAGE. > May I just point out that the name of the WG includes the word "Usenet", > so defining how Usenet works is hardly off topic. For USEAGE. Not in my opinion, for the protocol, which is not specific to Usenet. As I say, this is one of those things that people can look at and see which direction they prefer. > And private implementations of Netnews need administration just as much > as the public one. For sure, hierarchy administrators do exist (you and > I are, or have been, both involved in that) and Usenet would collapse > without them. The only oddity is that the method of establishing them is > distinctly murky, but in practice works remarkably well. And for sure, > the protocols contain features that assume they exist. Which is all > USEPRO says, if you actually read it carefully. Well, I dropped all of those references and didn't run into any problems with features that assumed they existed, so at the protocol level I don't agree. The software and protocol are largely agnostic to how those things are structured, which is what enables hierarchies to have so many very different policies. >> I'm not happy with the readability of the instructions for Path >> construction. Charles has a new version in his latest draft that may >> be much better. It may be even better to pull all Path discussion into >> a separate section of its own (or a subsection of duties) and just >> reference it from the duties sections of the specific agents. > My new version had been published on this List (twice). Yes, and I've looked at it, and I'm still trying to decide what way feels the best to me. I had a limited amount of time to get the draft finished, and this was one of the things that I didn't spend a lot of time on. I think we're all agreed, or nearly agreed, on what agents should do with the Path header and it's just a matter of finding good wording, which makes it less important to hash out immediately than the places where there's disagreement. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7ITpMc049554; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:29:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB7ITpNj049553; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:29:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7ITogh049547 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:29:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B43D24CA95 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:29:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A1A64BF1D for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:29:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 62964E7B51; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:29:50 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document In-Reply-To: <J9r6G8.9qp@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:19:20 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r6G8.9qp@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:29:50 -0800 Message-ID: <87d56vv9sx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> The point that I hadn't realized before is that defining systems that >> are trying to do reinjection as gateways not only makes logical sense >> (they're gatewaying between two disconnected Netnews networks), .... > I can imagine situations in which reinjection is nothing like gatewaying, > but I need to see your draft before commenting further. Well, one of the reasons why I put it up on my web site was so that people could look at it before the draft editor got around to publishing it. >>> It was in application/newstransmission because Henry Spencer put it >>> there when he registered it. >> Ah, that explains it. > Yes, if we remove it from there, then it needs an explicit mention that it > is a change from the current news/transmission definition. I would have > no great problem with doing that. Okay. That's the direction I'm leaning at the moment. > And in that case, the batch format is only relevant for describing the > response to the 'sendme' control message Well, in my opinion, the batch format is not at all relevant to describing the response to the sendme control message. It's outside the scope of our document to specify how articles are transmitted from one system to another, and transmitting them in response to sendme is no exception. Whether they're then sent by NNTP, by UUCP with batches, by magnetic tape, or by someone walking next door with a floppy disk isn't part of the sendme specification. The control mesages are just there to arrange what should be sent, not how. That's one of the reasons why I took it out; the only thing in my draft that referenced it was the application/news-transmission registration. > (and I hope you are not going to remove mention of the 'ihave' and > 'sendme' control messages; No. I argued for keeping them. > Also, the ghastly 'to' hack in newsgroup-names needs to be mentioned, if > only because we mention it in Usefor and refer to USEPRO for the gory > details. It's there in all the specificity that I've ever heard for it. There really isn't that much to say about it. >> ... From the perspective of our draft, it's a very odd sideline that >> adds about a page of text for something that essentially no one is >> going to care about,... > Eh? The batch format is described in 16 lines (though it could do with a > mention of compression). Plus additional wording in application/news-transmission. It's not quite a page, but it saved a noticable chunk of space. > I think the least you need to say is that, to be compatible with present > software, any charset specified here MUST have ASCII as a subset (no > EBCDIC!). And maybe should/SHOULD be UTF-8 (with mention of NNTP as the > reason). > With that restriction, I think a charset parameter might now work. Hm. Yeah, that makes sense, and still allows for what's going on in practice today. Anyone have a suggestion on how one words "MUST have ASCII as a subset" in fairly precise language? >>> I have no real problem with that. But it is introducing a >>> *new*feature*, horror of horrors :-(, and it is dealing with matters >>> which are not seen "on the wire" - even greater horrors. >> This isn't a new feature -- it's already implemented by every widely used >> news server that I'm aware of. > Sure, but not always in that form. But surely the point is that that > form should NEVER appear 'on the wire' and thus is better not normative. > It is really a private matter between servers and their clients > (though it is a convention that shold be sidely encouraged, hence my > NOTE). But I am not really arguing against it. It appears on the wire between reading agents and serving agents, and our standard covers that protocol. How serving agents talk to reading agents is not a private matter. It's part of what we're standardizing, even if we don't have a tremendous amount we have to say about it and not many restrictions we place on it. > Of more concern to me is the behaviour of NNTP agents which do not send > control messages to users who ask for messages in some particular group. That's the way that all widely used news servers behave and there's years of existing practice behind that. I'm going to take a lot of convincing to recommend something else. > That behaviour is not required even by RFC 3977, It's not a topic for NNTP; NNTP doesn't dictate how news servers assign articles to groups. It's a topic for USEPRO, which is why I addressed it there. > but it seems endemic, and leads to the problem that Frank just mentioned > that you are forced to bring down the complete control.cancel group if > you want to see actual cancel messages for some reason. That's far and away the lesser of two evils, IMO. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7IGo3u047803; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:16:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB7IGo2u047802; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:16:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7IGlhc047794 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:16:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B9174BFA4 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:16:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1974BDFF for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:16:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 50905E7B51; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:16:47 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message In-Reply-To: <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:27:47 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:16:47 -0800 Message-ID: <87hcw7vaeo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> However, moving articles between groups after they're stored pose weird >> protocol concerns that I am not at all convinced the current proposal >> has adequately dealt with, even if it were widely implemented. > No, USEPRO make it clear that you cannot expect to move articles around, > except when the target group is empty (this is not for merging groups). My concerns definitely still apply when the target group is empty. > Essentially, you can keep the articles physically in the old group and > rename the directory concerned, or move them bodily to the newly created > group. Only one group ever exists on the server, the other is just an > alias for it (which might happen either way around). The nature of the > alias (at least on CNEWS, though probably on others) is that whichever > alias you ask to see the group by (whether for finding old articles or > storing new ones, it all happens in the one group). Except at least with INN, you can't post to an aliased group (which makes sense and seems like the right semantics for aliasing in general to me), so if the new group is aliased to the old group, users won't be able to post except by going into the old group and posting there. That seems less than ideal. That means that if you want the articles to be accessible, you do need to move them from the old group to the new group and then alias the old group to the new group, since otherwise no one's going to be able to get at them. >> For example, unless you rewrite the Newsgroups header of the old >> articles or add a Followup-To header or followups to articles that were >> moved from the old group will be sad (if not on the local server then >> on someone else's server). > Absolutely not! Otherwise threads are going to get hopelessly confused, > and you break the fundamental rule of Usenet that an article appears > exactly the same (modulo Path, Xref, etc) whichever server you find it > on. So instead you create a bunch of messages that can't be replied to without a bunch of manual fiddling with the headers, which sparks user confusion. I don't like either alternative here. This is one of the parts of the mvgroup proposal that bugs me. Either way you go, the result doesn't seem much better than just doing an rmgroup and a newgroup. Different, but not clearly better. > So once a thread starts, it remains in its original group (unless > followups are manually changed). Some users may believe they are reading > it in newgroup, and some in oldgroup (and may be slightly confused if > they inspect the Newsgroup header too closely). But whichever is the > case, if you followup it will appear to you to be in your group and to > other Usenet users in whichever group their own server has put it in. I don't understand what you mean here. If you follow up, you'll copy the Newsgroups header field from the predecessor into the Newsgroups header field of your follow-up, and then posting that message will fail because you're trying to post to an aliased group. It makes no difference in how follow-ups are constructed what group your news reader thinks it's reading (and in fact, if it uses NEWNEWS, it may not think it's reading any particular group at all). > In fact, an NNTP client cannot actually tell which of the two his server > really keeps it in unless it inspects the Active File, or looks closely > at the Xref. You can't even tell with Xref unless you allow messages to be rewritten. (And I don't see how you can get away without rewriting the message to modify at least the Xref header field on INN. Having Xref be wrong in a message in INN causes a ton of problems, particularly with the recovery tools. It's like having a file system in an inconsistent state. It's not a stable configuration.) >> Implementing mvgroup as a clone of newgroup, or even a clone of >> newgroup and a delayed rmgroup, is pointless. That doesn't solve any >> of the problems that mvgroup was introduced to solve. Unless readers >> are automatically redirected to the new newsgroup and, ideally, the old >> articles are also preserved, there's no reason to bother with it, since >> it won't be any better than what's already available now. > Yes it does, because at the least it gives you the same as the previous > system, but with the added benefit that newsadmins are more likely to > accept both halves of the change if it comes as one command, I don't think I believe this. If news administrators are acting on control messages, there's no reason why they'd act on the newgroup and not the rmgroup unless they specifically configured their server that way, and if they did because they don't want to remove old groups on renamings, they wouldn't act on the mvgroup anyway because it does the same thing. Or they'd treat mvgroup like newgroup. If news administrators are not acting on control messages (which is the more common case), none of this matters. > and it opens the way to more sophisticated implementations as time goes > by and user pressure starts to demand them. That sounds *so* much like experimental track to me. > Old articles get preserved either way, just that you may have to examine > both groups to find them if your server has done the minimal > implementation. If you implement mvgroup as newgroup and rmgroup, old messages are not preserved. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7HodjY044817; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:50:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB7HodBx044816; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:50:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7Hocxp044810 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:50:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C2074CC33 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7484CB84 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 055AAE7EC5; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:50:38 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document In-Reply-To: <J9wsu0.20x@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:10:47 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r3tC.70D@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhncxzh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9sw88.3qo@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87bqmi9pkj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9v1Mw.IJL@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87veko3kp5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9wsu0.20x@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:50:37 -0800 Message-ID: <8764cnwq6q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> True, I can see where that would be useful. I forgot that the default >> behavior was hierarchy-scoped, not sub-hierarchy-scoped, so yes, the >> current cn.bbs.*-only checkgroups would remove other cn.* groups, which >> isn't desirable. > Ah! I had thought they were sub-hierarchy-scoped (and that's what USEPRO > says - I have not yet read that far in your draft yet to see what that > says). But I see that s-o-1036 agrees with you (though a bit vague) and > so does the CNews implementation. INN as well. > OTOH, if you are correct then how come the cn.bbs.* checkgroups have not > destroyed the rest of the cn.* hierarchy long ago? Do you, as a > newsadmin, get a message telling you that you ought to delete umpteen > groups in cn.* every time a cn.bbs.* checkgroups comes out? Well, I as a news administrator don't carry cn.*, so I personally haven't dealt with it one way or the other. The code that maintains the ftp.isc.org list has a more specific permissions configuration than news servers often enforce that prevents cn.bbs.* checkgroups from affecting anything outside of cn.bbs.* even if they're interpreted protocol-wise as doing so. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7Hm7FF044478; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:48:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB7Hm7E2044477; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:48:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7Hm6T8044470 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:48:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E42B4C6CA for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:48:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C7C4CDC7 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:48:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D36C1E7EC5; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:48:05 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message In-Reply-To: <J9wwy1.6B8@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:39:37 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com> <oCCZWbETSVdFFAjY@highwayman.com> <J9v32x.K18@clerew.man.ac.uk> <5ke9fsIjOwdFFAzj@highwayman.com> <J9wwy1.6B8@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:48:05 -0800 Message-ID: <87ac1zwqay.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Yes, full fledged servers normally retain articles from removed groups > until they have all expired by natural means. Eh? INN certainly doesn't. I noticed that in the draft as well and was very perplexed by it (and took it out of my version, since I've not heard of a news server doing that). Once the group is removed, it's removed. You can't select it, read it, look at it, anything. > That, I think, is the crux of the matter. Can we agree that the only > people we need to worry about are those who are already subscribed to > the old group? In that case, they will surely be aware of what is going > on. It would be a very strange group whose 'culture' did not encompass > discussions about the status of the group itself. This is one of these places where I think the Usenet-centric nature of the discussion has hurt our ability to come up with a good general protocol. This may be true on Usenet where there's some sort of formal group change process, and which is only part of what Netnews is used for. Internal newsgroups may get moved without any notification in the group, and in fact I would consider mvgroup a failure unless it supports that. That's the whole point, after all -- to make renaming a group a first-class operation like creating or removing, one that behaves in a natural manner. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7HQUrD040563; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:26:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB7HQUx4040562; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:26:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.86]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7HQSmC040556 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:26:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from richard@highwayman.com) Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=happyday.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1GsN0r-0000Nh-JT for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:26:25 +0000 Message-ID: <48J9p17x5EeFFAK1@highwayman.com> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:25:05 +0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com> <oCCZWbETSVdFFAjY@highwayman.com> <J9v32x.K18@clerew.man.ac.uk> <5ke9fsIjOwdFFAzj@highwayman.com> <J9wwy1.6B8@clerew.man.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <J9wwy1.6B8@clerew.man.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.03 M <rQ$$+X3n77$$INKLyyR+d+OsCs> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <J9wwy1.6B8@clerew.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes >>the client would allocate >>articles to groups in the local database by examining the Newsgroups: >>header field, so it would not be relevant. > >So even if your client issued a GROUP command followed by ARTICLE, it >would still store it under whichever group was in the Newsgroups header? yes, for consistency with the NEWNEWS case where this is essential >>If you mean by "in the first case" the special state "when my system >>somehow becomes aware of a mvgroup" then yes, some interaction with the >>user will be necessary -- if only to explain that something weird and >>wonderful has happened > >That, I think, is the crux of the matter. Can we agree that the only >people we need to worry about are those who are already subscribed to the >old group? In that case, they will surely be aware of what is going on. Which is, of course, exactly what happens at the moment, and why the world has survived into the 21st century without mvgroup and can continue to do so [with apologies to the chair for the repetition in the second comment, the first one was actually contributing something new] - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBRXhOcZoAxkTY1oPiEQLEbACgmp1cMmChcZWf8ViApnHvw7wXizYAoOyN jq6MFYae7WQoz1hMXINfWkZE =2v9/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7HCEAp039182; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:12:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB7HCEcg039181; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:12:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7HCDvh039174 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:12:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3#clerew$man&ac$uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45784b66.adb5.18 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:12:06 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB7HC4PY010357 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:12:04 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB7HC49O010354 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:12:04 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23820 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message Message-ID: <J9wwy1.6B8@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com> <oCCZWbETSVdFFAjY@highwayman.com> <J9v32x.K18@clerew.man.ac.uk> <5ke9fsIjOwdFFAzj@highwayman.com> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:39:37 GMT Lines: 108 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <5ke9fsIjOwdFFAzj@highwayman.com> Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> writes: >In message <J9v32x.K18@clerew.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey ><chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes >>I don't see why that complication is necessary. Either the server has >>both groups in separate existence during the overlap period, or it has >>them aliased to one group. >indeed so ... and my system is effectively a server as well, so >(depending on design decisions) it needs to alias or overlap in some >way. In order to do that it needs to become aware of the "mvgroup" >event, and that's what my issue (a) was saying The whole 'mvgroup' idea was based on the assumption that existing User Agents would behave in a sensible (i.e. non-mysterious) manner provided the servers did sensible things (which would require at least some minimal upgrade to the server to notice the arrival of the 'mvgroup'). If that assumption is wrong, then indeed reexamination of the idea is in order. Hence my reason to enquire whether some existing user agents such as Turnpike would exhibit 'mysterious' behaviour in their present form (of course, that does not prevent their implementors from adding extra bells and whistle to deal with 'mvgroup' if they think it useful). >>What happens at present if a server ... >>and later removes an old one on your system? >my system remains unaware of removals (this is a flaw in NEWGROUPS) >unless a full LISTGROUP is requested. In practice if there are articles >in the local database then the old group remains in existence so that >those articles can still be accessed .... only once all the articles >vanish will the old group name be forgotten about Yes, full fledged servers normally retain articles from removed groups until they have all expired by natural means. Posting of new articles is normally prevented, though. Nothing 'mysterious' so far. >>Or if it suddenly >>aliases two groups together? >I've never seen a server do that... but the client would allocate >articles to groups in the local database by examining the Newsgroups: >header field, so it would not be relevant. So even if your client issued a GROUP command followed by ARTICLE, it would still store it under whichever group was in the Newsgroups header? In which case, it would behave essentially as if the server was keeping both groups separately, so the same as in my first scenario. FWIW, when I created an alias for a group last week, I see that NEWGROUPS tells me it has appeared, and shows its Active File line. >>Presumably in the first case, your client tells its readers that a new >>group exists and invites them to subscribe. >No -- that's just dumb (and yes I know that some Unix systems do that). >New groups (often with silly or vaguely obscene names) are created all >the time, so bothering users with trivia is a waste of time. My 'nn' reader tells me that. But fortunately my local server has strict instructions not to accept newgroups from alt.*, so I am not bothered :-). >If you mean by "in the first case" the special state "when my system >somehow becomes aware of a mvgroup" then yes, some interaction with the >user will be necessary -- if only to explain that something weird and >wonderful has happened That, I think, is the crux of the matter. Can we agree that the only people we need to worry about are those who are already subscribed to the old group? In that case, they will surely be aware of what is going on. It would be a very strange group whose 'culture' did not encompass discussions about the status of the group itself. So for sure there would be articles discussing the forthcoming change, announcements that it had happened, advice that they would likely need to subscribe to the new group (and maybe unsubscribe to the old, according to whether and how their user agent was showing old articles in the new). And of course moaners and trolls still decrying the whole thing long after it had happened :-). So, again, nothing particularly 'mysterious' to users who were familiar enough with how to subscribe and unsubscribe to groups, and to clear out stored articles from groups they were no longer interested in. >>.... Eventually the old group disappears, and >>presumably copies of articles in the old group are kept or disappear on >>the client according to what the user has configured, or whatever your >>client normally does with a rmgroup. >I like the word "presumably" in that sentence. The bit you have snipped >with tasks (b) (c) (d) (e) were all about the substantial amount of work >that would be required at a database level to make it all work I don't see that. How is it different from what the database level would have done if there had been a newgroup followed by a rmgroup? For from what you have described to me, it would seem that is how Turnpike would perceive it. Other user agents might perceive it differently, of course. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7HC9Ul039171; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB7HC95r039170; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7HC6GM039160 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3#clerew$man#ac^uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45784b65.917d.3da for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:12:05 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB7HC43W010349 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:12:04 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB7HC3l3010345 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:12:03 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23819 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document Message-ID: <J9wsu0.20x@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r3tC.70D@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhncxzh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9sw88.3qo@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87bqmi9pkj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9v1Mw.IJL@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87veko3kp5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:10:47 GMT Lines: 48 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <87veko3kp5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >> Russ Allbery wrote: >>> If it existed *and were widely deployed*. My guess is that they'll never >>> be able to use it no matter what we say in our document, since that use of >>> it is not backward-compatible. >> Certainly cn.bbs.* could start using it immediately, since that would >> merely be what they are currently doing with that extra parameter added >> (ignored by old systems). >True, I can see where that would be useful. I forgot that the default >behavior was hierarchy-scoped, not sub-hierarchy-scoped, so yes, the >current cn.bbs.*-only checkgroups would remove other cn.* groups, which >isn't desirable. Ah! I had thought they were sub-hierarchy-scoped (and that's what USEPRO says - I have not yet read that far in your draft yet to see what that says). But I see that s-o-1036 agrees with you (though a bit vague) and so does the CNews implementation. OTOH, if you are correct then how come the cn.bbs.* checkgroups have not destroyed the rest of the cn.* hierarchy long ago? Do you, as a newsadmin, get a message telling you that you ought to delete umpteen groups in cn.* every time a cn.bbs.* checkgroups comes out? >I'm saying that the chances are very high that cn.* will never be able to >issue a checkgroups that omits all of cn.bbs.*. Ever. No matter what we >write in our document. In that case we might as well write it :-) . At least, on sites where it was implemented, it might reduce the damage done by ill-formed checkgroups mesages (such as cn.bbs.* currently appears to be). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7Cb8IX002067; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:37:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB7Cb8Iu002066; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:37:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB7Cb75Q002058 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:37:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0582596DB for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:33:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22458-07 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:33:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03D02596D7 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:33:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45780AED.4000509@alvestrand.no> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:37:01 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Strawman consensus call, mvgroup control message Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> As far as I can tell from the list traffic: - Charles supports the inclusion of a "mvgroup" control message in -usefor-usepro - All other speakers do not support this inclusion - Nobody has any big objection to a separate experimental document specifying such a message, despite the fact that several people doubt that it will be useful or adopted. If nobody but Charles speaks in favour of the inclusion of "mvgroup", I'll rule that we have rough consensus to exclude it from -usepro, no matter who the editor is. If someone apart from Charles speaks in favour of its inclusion, we'll conduct a poll. Harald Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB6J9le3090950; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:09:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB6J9lU9090949; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:09:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB6J9jgt090935 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:09:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1DD9A4C32A for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:09:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134904BEE0 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:09:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 029B3E7D99; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:09:43 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document In-Reply-To: <J9v1Mw.IJL@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:25:44 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r3tC.70D@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhncxzh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9sw88.3qo@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87bqmi9pkj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9v1Mw.IJL@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:09:42 -0800 Message-ID: <87veko3kp5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> If it existed *and were widely deployed*. My guess is that they'll never >> be able to use it no matter what we say in our document, since that use of >> it is not backward-compatible. > Certainly cn.bbs.* could start using it immediately, since that would > merely be what they are currently doing with that extra parameter added > (ignored by old systems). True, I can see where that would be useful. I forgot that the default behavior was hierarchy-scoped, not sub-hierarchy-scoped, so yes, the current cn.bbs.*-only checkgroups would remove other cn.* groups, which isn't desirable. > Likewise de.alt.*. de.* is a solved problem. The de.* checkgroups includes de.alt.* and there's no separate de.alt.* checkgroups. They're already doing the best possible thing; anything involving chkscope would be a step in the wrong direction. > The question is what cn.* and de.* might do, and I think you are saying > that they would not dare use it until they were sure that sufficient > servers would recognize and act on it. I'm saying that the chances are very high that cn.* will never be able to issue a checkgroups that omits all of cn.bbs.*. Ever. No matter what we write in our document. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB6IEdjY084984; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:14:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB6IEdsW084983; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:14:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (smtp.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.10.81]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB6IEcmm084976 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:14:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from murch@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from [192.168.137.22] (ntonawnd-cuda1-cable-bundle-68-69-73-26.kntnny.adelphia.net [68.69.73.26]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kB6IEc05001712 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 13:14:38 -0500 Message-ID: <4577088C.6040201@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:14:36 -0500 From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Organization: Carnegie Mellon University User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: USEFOR-11 troubles References: <45704D2B.7596@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <45704D2B.7596@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 128.2.10.81 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann wrote: > Hi, Usefor-11 didn't make it in the first attempt, it got two [DISCUSS]: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2253&filename=draft-ietf-usefor-usefor FYI, I created ticket #1401 in the tracker for the open issues. -- Kenneth Murchison Systems Programmer Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer Carnegie Mellon University Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB6HtF5E083316; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:55:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB6HtFwf083315; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:55:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB6HtDlN083306 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:55:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from richard@highwayman.com) Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=happyday.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1Gs0z9-000Hrc-2t for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:55:12 +0000 Message-ID: <5ke9fsIjOwdFFAzj@highwayman.com> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:53:39 +0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com> <oCCZWbETSVdFFAjY@highwayman.com> <J9v32x.K18@clerew.man.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <J9v32x.K18@clerew.man.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.03 M <rU5$+HnH77$6KNKLqyV+d+e06Y> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <J9v32x.K18@clerew.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes > >Richard Clayton wrote: >> >> ... I use (and designed and helped write) what is effectively an offline >> news client. This means that it has to have some of the properties of >> news servers as well (storage, expiry, history, cross-referencing etc). >> >> Even in these broadband days, this type of client is still useful when >> connectivity to a server is not immediately available. >> >> Dealing with a mvgroup in such a client would involve [and this is just >> off the top of my head, there's probably a lot more] >> >> (a) receiving the control message [it's not otherwise essential to see >> any control messages] or extending the NEWGROUP response to be able to >> tell the client about the event > >I don't see why that complication is necessary. Either the server has >both groups in separate existence during the overlap period, or it has >them aliased to one group. indeed so ... and my system is effectively a server as well, so (depending on design decisions) it needs to alias or overlap in some way. In order to do that it needs to become aware of the "mvgroup" event, and that's what my issue (a) was saying >What happens at present if a server creates a >new group it is reported via NEWGROUPS >and later removes an old one on your system? my system remains unaware of removals (this is a flaw in NEWGROUPS) unless a full LISTGROUP is requested. In practice if there are articles in the local database then the old group remains in existence so that those articles can still be accessed .... only once all the articles vanish will the old group name be forgotten about >Or if it suddenly >aliases two groups together? I've never seen a server do that... but the client would allocate articles to groups in the local database by examining the Newsgroups: header field, so it would not be relevant. >Presumably in the first case, your client tells its readers that a new >group exists and invites them to subscribe. No -- that's just dumb (and yes I know that some Unix systems do that). New groups (often with silly or vaguely obscene names) are created all the time, so bothering users with trivia is a waste of time. If you mean by "in the first case" the special state "when my system somehow becomes aware of a mvgroup" then yes, some interaction with the user will be necessary -- if only to explain that something weird and wonderful has happened >After which your readers >read both groups and respond as normal (remember that in this case the >server has adopted the minimal implementation, so it is not going to be >as convenient for users as it might be - but at least nothing happens >that should surprise them). Eventually the old group disappears, and >presumably copies of articles in the old group are kept or disappear on >the client according to what the user has configured, or whatever your >client normally does with a rmgroup. I like the word "presumably" in that sentence. The bit you have snipped with tasks (b) (c) (d) (e) were all about the substantial amount of work that would be required at a database level to make it all work >The second case is more interesting, but I would expect both groups to >be visible on your client, and to contain the same articles. that's one possible design, yes -- I can see others >I have just been experimenting with an aliassed group on my own machine >with the two newsreaders available to me. which are both "online" newsreaders, viz: they don't have any local article storage, so this isn't especially fascinating to me. Try Turnpike or Agent or similar... >But whatever hapens, the user is no worse off than with separate >newgroup and rmgroup commands, and hopefully is much better. for a small value of "much" and a big value of coding - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBRXcDo5oAxkTY1oPiEQIxtgCfUPPYoEcjGItaUczJRa8HBzn+8QMAoKwq Lea+r0bMURb4xyEU5TPV8F84 =wG0b -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB6HC9YK078032; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB6HC9P6078031; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB6HC7li078013 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3&clerew&man$ac^uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 4576f9e5.104c1.2c9 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:12:05 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB6HC5Kl026958 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB6HC4tu026955 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:12:04 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23812 Path: clerew!news From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document In-Reply-To: <87bqmi9pkj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: localhost Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Message-ID: <J9v1Mw.IJL@clerew.man.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20051027 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r3tC.70D@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhncxzh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9sw88.3qo@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87bqmi9pkj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:25:44 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > > >>Yes, those are probably the ones I have seen. But presumably the rest of >>cn.* _does_ exist, at which point if they ever did want to issue a >>checkgroups they would have to ensure that the full cn.bbs.* stuff was >>included within it (accurately). Or they could use our new checkscope >>feature if it existed. > > > If it existed *and were widely deployed*. My guess is that they'll never > be able to use it no matter what we say in our document, since that use of > it is not backward-compatible. > Certainly cn.bbs.* could start using it immediately, since that would merely be what they are currently doing with that extra parameter added (ignored by old systems). Likewise de.alt.*. The question is what cn.* and de.* might do, and I think you are saying that they would not dare use it until they were sure that sufficient servers would recognize and act on it. Or else they would continue doing what de.* have started doing which is to include all the de.alt.* groups as well (assuming they have an accurate list). That is a fair point. OTOH, it seems like a pretty easy feature to implement, so they might not have to wait that long. I think we need to hear the views of some Germans on this one. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB6HC9h7078030; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB6HC8AN078029; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB6HC7Qk078014 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3#clerew&man*ac$uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 4576f9e6.6ef6.350 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:12:06 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB6HC5uo026968 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB6HC53p026965 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23813 Path: clerew!news From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message In-Reply-To: <oCCZWbETSVdFFAjY@highwayman.com> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: localhost Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Message-ID: <J9v32x.K18@clerew.man.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20051027 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com> <oCCZWbETSVdFFAjY@highwayman.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:56:57 GMT Lines: 71 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Richard Clayton wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > In message <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com>, Forrest J. Cavalier III > <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> writes > > >>Your recent post doesn't address it being experimental, unproven, >>expensive to implement, expensive to execute, and requiring >>coordination of new servers and new clients. > > > Since my recent anti-mvgroup email didn't give any reasons, could I > stress the issue of clients... > > ... I use (and designed and helped write) what is effectively an offline > news client. This means that it has to have some of the properties of > news servers as well (storage, expiry, history, cross-referencing etc). > > Even in these broadband days, this type of client is still useful when > connectivity to a server is not immediately available. > > Dealing with a mvgroup in such a client would involve [and this is just > off the top of my head, there's probably a lot more] > > (a) receiving the control message [it's not otherwise essential to see > any control messages] or extending the NEWGROUP response to be able to > tell the client about the event I don't see why that complication is necessary. Either the server has both groups in separate existence during the overlap period, or it has them aliased to one group. What happens at present if a server creates a new group and later removes an old one on your system? Or if it suddenly aliases two groups together? Presumably in the first case, your client tells its readers that a new group exists and invites them to subscribe. After which your readers read both groups and respond as normal (remember that in this case the server has adopted the minimal implementation, so it is not going to be as convenient for users as it might be - but at least nothing happens that should surprise them). Eventually the old group disappears, and presumably copies of articles in the old group are kept or disappear on the client according to what the user has configured, or whatever your client normally does with a rmgroup. The second case is more interesting, but I would expect both groups to be visible on your client, and to contain the same articles. Whether local copies stored in your client were stored separately for the two groups or mirrored the aliassing on the server depends on how you have written it. Again, the user would be informed that a new group had appeared, and his best strategy in this case would be to adjust his subscription to the new one at the earliest convenient opportunity and to forget the old one. I have just been experimenting with an aliassed group on my own machine with the two newsreaders available to me. 'nn' just recognises the existence of one group. If you try to direct its focus to the alias, it just goes to the underlying real group and that is what you get. 'Mozilla' appears to contain both groups and they contain the same articles. But it keeps separate .newsrc entries for them, so it is better for the user to retain a subscription to just one of them. He probably has to do a 'mark everything as read' when he first moves (having finished reading in the old one, or course). But whatever hapens, the user is no worse off than with separate newgroup and rmgroup commands, and hopefully is much better. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB5IMTfX027970; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:22:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB5IMTOI027969; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:22:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB5IMSHb027962 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:22:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 00CE74CDFE for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:22:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1414CBAD for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:22:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D3D48E7C0F; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:22:27 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message In-Reply-To: <J9sx5E.4qF@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Tue, 5 Dec 2006 12:53:38 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com> <J9sx5E.4qF@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:22:27 -0800 Message-ID: <877ix69p98.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Let me ask just two questions: > Q1 (for the group) > Other things being equal, do we WANT to see this happen? Only in conjunction with full support in the NNTP protocol so that clients can do the right thing, including automatic update of subscriptions. I think anything short of that is likely to be more confusing than useful. However, control messages being what they are, I certainly have no objection to people issuing mvgroup control messages and sites acting on them if they disagree with me and think that it's useful. > If so, then we have a choice between doing it in this standard or as a > separate experimental protocol. So Q2 is mainly addressed at Russ: > Q2A > It it appears in the Standard, will it be implemented in INN > (not as first priority on Day 1, but later when more pressing > changes are done)? > Q2B > If it appears as an Experimental Protocol, will it be implemented > in INN (not as first priority on Day 1, but later when more > pressing changes are done)? The answer in either case is identical: I don't intend to implement it myself, but I'll review and commit a decent implementation if someone else wants it and wants to use it. That will be the same whether it's in a standards-track document, an experimental document, or not standardized at all. I may have architecture objections to moving articles unless it's done very carefully. Even if they're moved into a completely new group, doing this properly in INN is challenging and requires updating multiple databases and cross-references properly. There is also no way of doing this properly with existing mvgroup-unaware clients without rewriting the message to, at the very least, change the Xref header, which creates a nasty conflict between the desire to never modify messages and the practical implications of having posts for which normal operations fail. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB5IFgSf027418; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:15:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB5IFgis027417; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:15:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB5IFfpl027410 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:15:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E66D4C6D6 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:15:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0FC4C57A for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:15:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E58CEE7C0F; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:15:40 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document In-Reply-To: <J9sw88.3qo@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Tue, 5 Dec 2006 12:33:44 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r3tC.70D@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhncxzh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9sw88.3qo@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:15:40 -0800 Message-ID: <87bqmi9pkj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Yes, those are probably the ones I have seen. But presumably the rest of > cn.* _does_ exist, at which point if they ever did want to issue a > checkgroups they would have to ensure that the full cn.bbs.* stuff was > included within it (accurately). Or they could use our new checkscope > feature if it existed. If it existed *and were widely deployed*. My guess is that they'll never be able to use it no matter what we say in our document, since that use of it is not backward-compatible. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB5HC89Y019924; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB5HC86T019923; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB5HC7mN019910 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:12:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster*pop3*clerew#man&ac*uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 4575a866.cedf.14e for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:12:06 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB5HC55B022300 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB5HC5Gb022297 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23805 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message Message-ID: <J9sx5E.4qF@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 12:53:38 GMT Lines: 54 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> writes: >Yes, this working group already saw explanations of mvgroup. >Your recent post doesn't address it being experimental, unproven, >expensive to implement, expensive to execute, and requiring >coordination of new servers and new clients. Plus, you admitted >that there is no real benefit now, only some framework for adding >future benefit. Low benefit with High cost doesn't have a chance >of getting implemented in widely used systems. It is NOT expensive to implement in its minimal form, and on servers that already implement aliasing in the 'classical' manner (i.e. as in Bnews and Cnews, but not apparently INN) it is NOT expensive at all. Being expensive to execute is irrelevant. Even if they occurred at the rate of one a month, that hardly amounts to a noticeable quantity of machine cycles. Servers and clients? Only servers, I think (people who issue control messages usually use custom scripts, and generating a mvgroup message is pretty simple). Yes, different servers will behave differently, so on some servers you will see two separate groups during the overlap period, and on others you will see one group with the other aliased to it. That situation cannot be avoided. Let me ask just two questions: Q1 (for the group) Other things being equal, do we WANT to see this happen? If so, then we have a choice between doing it in this standard or as a separate experimental protocol. So Q2 is mainly addressed at Russ: Q2A It it appears in the Standard, will it be implemented in INN (not as first priority on Day 1, but later when more pressing changes are done)? Q2B If it appears as an Experimental Protocol, will it be implemented in INN (not as first priority on Day 1, but later when more pressing changes are done)? -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB5HC8ib019925; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB5HC8Te019922; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:12:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB5HC6TU019909 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:12:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3*clerew&man*ac&uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 4575a865.bc95.56a for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:12:05 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB5HC57E022291 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:12:05 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB5HC4sU022286 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:12:04 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23804 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document Message-ID: <J9sw88.3qo@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r3tC.70D@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhncxzh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 12:33:44 GMT Lines: 27 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <878xhncxzh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >> The other hierarchy that I know of which currently issues separate >> checkgroups for a sub-hierarchy is cn.*. I don't know how they prevent >> these from deleting everything else in cn.*, but presumably they have >> managed it somehow. >I don't recall ever seeing a checkgroups for cn.*, only for cn.bbs.*. Yes, those are probably the ones I have seen. But presumably the rest of cn.* _does_ exist, at which point if they ever did want to issue a checkgroups they would have to ensure that the full cn.bbs.* stuff was included within it (accurately). Or they could use our new checkscope feature if it existed. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB5BFsiF073779; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 04:15:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB5BFsCZ073776; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 04:15:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB5BFo6R073761 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 04:15:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from richard@highwayman.com) Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=happyday.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1GrYH6-000JgH-9H for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:15:49 +0000 Message-ID: <oCCZWbETSVdFFAjY@highwayman.com> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:14:27 +0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com> In-Reply-To: <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.03 M <7o3$+3Vz77$NpNKL1yb+d+vPxZ> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com>, Forrest J. Cavalier III <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> writes >Your recent post doesn't address it being experimental, unproven, >expensive to implement, expensive to execute, and requiring >coordination of new servers and new clients. Since my recent anti-mvgroup email didn't give any reasons, could I stress the issue of clients... ... I use (and designed and helped write) what is effectively an offline news client. This means that it has to have some of the properties of news servers as well (storage, expiry, history, cross-referencing etc). Even in these broadband days, this type of client is still useful when connectivity to a server is not immediately available. Dealing with a mvgroup in such a client would involve [and this is just off the top of my head, there's probably a lot more] (a) receiving the control message [it's not otherwise essential to see any control messages] or extending the NEWGROUP response to be able to tell the client about the event (b) juggling around with the local database to relocate articles (c) dealing specially with ancient articles that have been locally preserved past their nominal expiry dates (d) juggling around with the newsgroup "subscriptions" [and deducing which of several servers should be used for accessing articles within this group in the future] and probably, when it was all worked through and it was realised that clients were ignoring mvgroups unless the change was shoved in their faces (e) dealing with a new set of custom response codes for when the group has apparently disappeared under the client's feet. This is quite a lot of coding and database redesign for an essentially trivial feature. I am pleased to see a draft with it removed. - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBRXVUk5oAxkTY1oPiEQKTcQCgs5APpK604oTUDE6/hSGiAoE5ZNYAoN2n KqiE6yjmtL8cZZb4wPCzx0It =2wqc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB577dKd041002; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:07:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB577dT7041001; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:07:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from relay00.pair.com (relay00.pair.com [209.68.5.9]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id kB577bmO040993 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:07:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mibsoft@mibsoftware.com) Received: (qmail 66912 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2006 07:07:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.11?) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 5 Dec 2006 07:07:35 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 216.37.253.144 Message-ID: <45751AB9.7080605@mibsoftware.com> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 02:07:37 -0500 From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Yes, this working group already saw explanations of mvgroup. Your recent post doesn't address it being experimental, unproven, expensive to implement, expensive to execute, and requiring coordination of new servers and new clients. Plus, you admitted that there is no real benefit now, only some framework for adding future benefit. Low benefit with High cost doesn't have a chance of getting implemented in widely used systems. Technical merit is not the only consideration of what stays in and stays out of standards track RFCs. There have to be interoperating implementations on widely used news servers. (CNews is educational, but it doesn't count as a widely used news server.) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB55D5SR029536; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 22:13:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB55D5bd029535; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 22:13:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB55D4nq029523 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 22:13:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster*pop3#clerew*man#ac^uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 4574ffdf.1676b.26f for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 05:13:03 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB55D1b8023798 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 05:13:01 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB55D0pj023790 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 05:13:00 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23799 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message Message-ID: <J9rKqB.3KI@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:27:47 GMT Lines: 114 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >> Now ideally, a mvgroup should, at one stroke, remove the old group, add >> the new, cause all existing articles magically to move to the new, and >> take care of running threads. Sounds like hard work, and the WG >> challenged me to produce an implementation; which I did, on CNEWS, and I >> tested it pretty thoroughly (though not on the live Usenet, of course, >> because this is one experiment you cannot do live). >It's implementable, and I do appreciate you writing an implementation and >seeing how it can be done. Unfortunately, the implementation you did is >in a news server that's not widely used and not particularly maintained, >so it doesn't count much towards deployed base, although it does count >towards implementation experience. >However, moving articles between groups after they're stored pose weird >protocol concerns that I am not at all convinced the current proposal has >adequately dealt with, even if it were widely implemented. No, USEPRO make it clear that you cannot expect to move articles around, except when the target group is empty (this is not for merging groups). Essentially, you can keep the articles physically in the old group and rename the directory concerned, or move them bodily to the newly created group. Only one group ever exists on the server, the other is just an alias for it (which might happen either way around). The nature of the alias (at least on CNEWS, though probably on others) is that whichever alias you ask to see the group by (whether for finding old articles or storing new ones, it all happens in the one group). > For example, >unless you rewrite the Newsgroups header of the old articles or add a >Followup-To header or followups to articles that were moved from the old >group will be sad (if not on the local server then on someone else's >server). Absolutely not! Otherwise threads are going to get hopelessly confused, and you break the fundamental rule of Usenet that an article appears exactly the same (modulo Path, Xref, etc) whichever server you find it on. So once a thread starts, it remains in its original group (unless followups are manually changed). Some users may believe they are reading it in newgroup, and some in oldgroup (and may be slightly confused if they inspect the Newsgroup header too closely). But whichever is the case, if you followup it will appear to you to be in your group and to other Usenet users in whichever group their own server has put it in. In fact, an NNTP client cannot actually tell which of the two his server really keeps it in unless it inspects the Active File, or looks closely at the Xref. If, at some stage, users change their subscription from the old group to the new, they will still see exactly the same articles. > Articles crossposted into the old group will need to have their >Xref headers updated (and therefore will have to have their overview >records regenerated) or crosspost chasing into the new group will not work >properly. I think the best strategy during the overlap period will be to include both groups in the Xref (the article numbers will be the same, of course). That way, User Agents that try to avoid showing the same article in two groups will get it right either way. Yes, if the .overview included the Xref, then it will have to be rebuilt. But only if the Xrefs in the existing articles in oldgroup were updated, which may not be necessary. Anyway, all that was working in my implementation (I was surprised to find it was over 5 years ago now). I fired all sorts of strange sequences of operations at it and it worked fine. Indeed I am still using a couple of local groups on my server that were moved at that time. > News readers need to be told somehow that the group has moved >so that they can update subscriptions automatically, and there's currently >no facility for doing that (we'd want to at least standardize the alias >flag in conjunction with this). Users will certainly have to change their subscription to the newgroup sometime before it finally disappears, but I don't think it has to be automatic. For sure, the actual renaming of the group will be a hot topic of conversation on the group itself, so people should be well aware of if. And the hierarchy admins, or the proponents of the change, can be expected to post frequent reminders if people need to take action (which is exactly what has to be done under the present newgroup followed by rmgroup system, so we are certainly no worse off than at present). >Implementing mvgroup as a clone of newgroup, or even a clone of newgroup >and a delayed rmgroup, is pointless. That doesn't solve any of the >problems that mvgroup was introduced to solve. Unless readers are >automatically redirected to the new newsgroup and, ideally, the old >articles are also preserved, there's no reason to bother with it, since it >won't be any better than what's already available now. Yes it does, because at the least it gives you the same as the previous system, but with the added benefit that newsadmins are more likely to accept both halves of the change if it comes as one command, and it opens the way to more sophisticated implementations as time goes by and user pressure starts to demand them. Old articles get preserved either way, just that you may have to examine both groups to find them if your server has done the minimal implementation. Introducing it netwide is going to take time however we do it, but setting the "entry level" low is the only way you will ever get it started. And it it doesn't even get started, then for sure it will never get finished. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB55D5W2029538; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 22:13:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB55D5Q8029537; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 22:13:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB55D4Fj029524 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 22:13:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3$clerew^man$ac*uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 4574ffdf.8f1.0 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 05:13:03 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB55D2mC023806 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 05:13:02 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB55D1Hv023803 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 05:13:01 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23800 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 submitted Message-ID: <J9rLBw.49D@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87r6vi3bw3.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:40:44 GMT Lines: 61 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <87r6vi3bw3.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > * I tried to keep the document focused tightly on its scope and removed > much discussion that I felt was outside its scope. This includes most > of the NOTEs; there are only a few places where I added a NOTE where > there wasn't one previously, and many places where I removed a NOTE. I > tried to be very clear about what was within the scope of the protocol > and what was not, and omitted discussion of areas that were not even if > the discussion was interesting. > * I tried to remove all references to policies, hierarchy administrators, > and other terms for the organization of Usenet. This is partly because > I felt they were out of scope for the protocol and partly because I > tried to make the document general to any Netnews network and avoid any > statements specific or unique to Usenet. Such matters can be discussed > in USEAGE. May I just point out that the name of the WG includes the word "Usenet", so defining how Usenet works is hardly off topic. And private implementations of Netnews need administration just as much as the public one. For sure, hierarchy administrators do exist (you and I are, or have been, both involved in that) and Usenet would collapse without them. The only oddity is that the method of establishing them is distinctly murky, but in practice works remarkably well. And for sure, the protocols contain features that assume they exist. Which is all USEPRO says, if you actually read it carefully. > * I have not followed Charles's lead in the renaming of serving agents to > storage agents; the former sounds more correct to me. I was just trying to avoid any possible confusion with news servers, a term we now use widely in USEFOR. >I'm not happy with the readability of the instructions for Path >construction. Charles has a new version in his latest draft that may be >much better. It may be even better to pull all Path discussion into a >separate section of its own (or a subsection of duties) and just reference >it from the duties sections of the specific agents. My new version had been published on this List (twice). >I'm also not happy with the substantial duplication of instructions >between injecting, relaying, and serving agents and think that if we could >find a clean way of not repeating ourselves, we could shorten the draft by >several pages. Valid point, though there were often small but necessary differences of detail. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB4IXQa5056268; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:33:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB4IXQNr056267; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:33:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB4IXNLT056234 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:33:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E43104C481 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C476E4C132 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B5873E7AF7; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:33:22 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document In-Reply-To: <J9r3tC.70D@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:22:24 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9r3tC.70D@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 10:33:22 -0800 Message-ID: <878xhncxzh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > The other hierarchy that I know of which currently issues separate > checkgroups for a sub-hierarchy is cn.*. I don't know how they prevent > these from deleting everything else in cn.*, but presumably they have > managed it somehow. I don't recall ever seeing a checkgroups for cn.*, only for cn.bbs.*. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB4HCZho043953; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:12:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB4HCZbw043952; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:12:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB4HCX2f043935 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:12:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster*pop3#clerew*man&ac*uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 457456f0.e661.4fc for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:12:16 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB4HCFXk024258 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:12:15 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB4HCFou024254 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:12:15 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23798 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: USEFOR-11 troubles Message-ID: <J9r7J6.Avz@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <45704D2B.7596@xyzzy.claranet.de> <8764cvtr2x.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:42:42 GMT Lines: 62 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <8764cvtr2x.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Reviewing USEPRO brought home to me that it's not possible to implement a >useful piece of Netnews software other than a pure article reader with >only the information in USEFOR. Just like you can't write a useful piece of mail software if all you have is RFC 2822. But that was never intended. >There are several that seem rather normative to me having just gone >through all of USEPRO, apart from the security considerations. Section >3.1.4 says that control messages are defined in USEPRO, section 3.1.5 >defers to USEPRO for the definition of <diag-keyword>, section 3.1.6 >defers to USEPRO for the content of the Subject header (and that reference >I think could simply be dropped, as the only place that USEPRO discusses >the Subject header is in the context of a followup and then only as a >MAY), section 3.2 states that further requirements for optional header >fields are in USEPRO, section 3.2.3 defers to USEPRO for valid control >message <verb>s, and section 3.2.12 defines the action of Supersedes in >terms of cancel control messages defined in USEPRO. USEFOR tells you enough about control messages to recognize one when you see it, and gives a broad syntax to which they must conform. That's all you need to know for the 'on the wire' format. That, and a hint of what they are meant for with a pointer to look elswhere for protocol issues. Much the same for <diag-keyword>. USEFOR tells you enough to recognize them, but there is no reason so far as USEFOR is concerned why any words satisfying the syntax should not be used (e.g. it is no pretext for dropping articles as syntactically incorrect). The Subject header reference is only to point out that there is sometimes a miniscule bit of structure there (we probably included it to keep John Stanley quiet :-) ). And the other mentions are concerning protocol issues. Essentially, the only 'semantics' we give in USEFOR are brief mentions of the intended purpose of each header, with the minimum description of protocol to make those mentions intelligible. >On the surface, it's hard to argue against some or most of those being >normative references. So I think it is quite proper to regard these as non-normative IMO (likewise the reference to security considerations, where the only ones explicitly given in USEFOR relate to syntactic/format matters). So, if you want to be able to publish USEFORE separately (which I was against, but that is another story), then I think you leave these things alone. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB4HCYom043945; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:12:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB4HCYhj043944; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:12:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB4HCXS3043933 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:12:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3#clerew*man$ac#uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 457456ef.145cb.10d for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:12:15 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB4HCEhr024249 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:12:15 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB4HCETc024246 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:12:14 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23797 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document Message-ID: <J9r6G8.9qp@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:19:20 GMT Lines: 125 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: >> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >>> * Completely ban reinjection as permitted in the current draft.... >The point that I hadn't realized before is that defining systems that are >trying to do reinjection as gateways not only makes logical sense (they're >gatewaying between two disconnected Netnews networks), .... I can imagine situations in which reinjection is nothing like gatewaying, but I need to see your draft before commenting further. >>> * Drop all description of the batch format and don't allow batches to be >>> sent via application/news-transmission. ... >> Batch format was only ever used for UUCP, where it was indeed necessary. >It's also used by the NNTP XBATCH extension. Not that I think many people >are using that (it was added to INN largely because it was trivial to do >given that INN already had batch support because of its UUCP support), but >it's rather neat and is the only current way to transfer compressed news >via NNTP. That look like a good reason to write an NNTP extension document. >> It was in application/newstransmission because Henry Spencer put it >> there when he registered it. >Ah, that explains it. Yes, if we remove it from there, then it needs an explicit mention that it is a change from the current news/transmission definition. I would have no great problem with doing that. And in that case, the batch format is only relevant for describing the response to the 'sendme' control message (and I hope you are not going to remove mention of the 'ihave' and 'sendme' control messages; they may be of mostly archaeological interest now, but they need to be formally documented somewhere, and I was still seeing them - leaked from some Japanese site - around 4 years ago, so I suspect they are still around). Also, the ghastly 'to' hack in newsgroup-names needs to be mentioned, if only because we mention it in Usefor and refer to USEPRO for the gory details. >... From the perspective of our draft, it's a very >odd sideline that adds about a page of text for something that essentially >no one is going to care about,... Eh? The batch format is described in 16 lines (though it could do with a mention of compression). If you want to remove the whole ihave/sendme/batch/to business to an Appendix, then that would be fine, but you can't just throw it away. >> I was not aware that the present description of batch format was >> deficient (it is largely taken from Son-of-1036).... >I'm surprised, given that you're using UUCP, that you're not using >compressed batches. No, I am not using UUCP now. I almost certainly used compressed batches when I last did. >>> * Add charset parameters for application/news-groupinfo and >>> application/news-checkgroups.... >> No, that would be most unwise until we have resolved how >> internationalized newsgroup-names are going to look, because they need >> to appear in the same file, and they really need to appear there in the >> same form as they do elsewhere. There was a time, round about when we dropped the idea of internationalized newsgroup-names, when people actually proposed all sorts of bizarre encodings of newsgroup-names within ASCII. I think, with the advent of the EAI WG, the risk of doing it that way has finally receded which gives us a bit more flexibility. But that was the time when I wrote in that restriction for checkgroups. I think the least you need to say is that, to be compatible with present software, any charset specified here MUST have ASCII as a subset (no EBCDIC!). And maybe should/SHOULD be UTF-8 (with mention of NNTP as the reason). With that restriction, I think a charset parameter might now work. >There's only something to undo if ... Yes, but I was trying to avoid putting in things that one might have to 'undo' later. >>> * Recommend use of the control hierarchy for storing control messages >>> rather than storing them in normal groups (upgraded from a NOTE). >> I have no real problem with that. But it is introducing a *new*feature*, >> horror of horrors :-(, and it is dealing with matters which are not seen >> "on the wire" - even greater horrors. >This isn't a new feature -- it's already implemented by every widely used >news server that I'm aware of. Sure, but not always in that form. But surely the point is that that form should NEVER appear 'on the wire' and thus is better not normative. It is really a private matter between servers and their clients (though it is a convention that shold be sidely encouraged, hence my NOTE). But I am not really arguing against it. Of more concern to me is the behaviour of NNTP agents which do not send control messages to users who ask for messages in some particular group. That behaviour is not required even by RFC 3977, but it seems endemic, and leads to the problem that Frank just mentioned that you are forced to bring down the complete control.cancel group if you want to see actual cancel messages for some reason. But that issue is outside of our scope, I think. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB4HCXhk043932; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:12:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB4HCXue043931; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:12:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB4HCVVg043917 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:12:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3#clerew$man#ac&uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 457456ee.621d.268 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:12:14 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB4HC8f7024235 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:12:14 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB4HC80i024232 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:12:08 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23796 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document Message-ID: <J9r3tC.70D@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:22:24 GMT Lines: 26 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >If one really wishes to have an administratively separate hierarchy, it's >far better to do what it.* did in creating it-alt.*. But de.* didn't. The feature was originally put in at their behest. The other hierarchy that I know of which currently issues separate checkgroups for a sub-hierarchy is cn.*. I don't know how they prevent these from deleting everything else in cn.*, but presumably they have managed it somehow. The feature should be pretty easy to implement (it easily translates into a wildmat). It would then be up to the admins of de.* and cn.* to lean on providers to implement it (I imagine cn.* would find it easier). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB4HCPw9043913; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:12:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB4HCPSL043912; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:12:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB4HCLH7043902 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:12:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3*clerew$man$ac&uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.238) id 457456e8.13285.24c for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:12:08 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB4HC8Ca024227 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:12:08 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB4HC7mf024220 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:12:07 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23795 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document Message-ID: <J9r3Hp.6Mo@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4570470C.7030808@mibsoftware.com> <4570523D.6BD6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:15:25 GMT Lines: 27 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <4570523D.6BD6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: >In theory fine. But my interpretation of Russ' and your comments >is that it's pointless: The USEFOR drafts proposed 'mvgroup' for >some years, so far nobody implemented it, no additional experiment >necessary to confirm its death. The reason nobody implemented it is that they wern't meant to until the draft became a standard. This is a new feature, and people who implement new features before they are finally and fully defined usually get into trouble [1]. It was always envisaged that introducing it would take quite some time after the standard appeared, hence the provision of transitional arrangements. [1] For example, there are some people using an earlier form of Injection-Info. It would have been better if they hadn't. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB2GHDub067235; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 09:17:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB2GHDtn067234; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 09:17:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (smtp.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.10.81]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB2GHB7G067226 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 09:17:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from murch@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from [192.168.137.22] (ntonawnd-cuda1-cable-bundle-68-69-73-26.kntnny.adelphia.net [68.69.73.26]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kB2GH8Gk013301 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:17:08 -0500 Message-ID: <4571A703.2020604@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 11:17:07 -0500 From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Organization: Carnegie Mellon University User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 submitted References: <87r6vi3bw3.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87r6vi3bw3.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 128.2.10.81 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > * There are numerous minor formatting changes and a few oddities of > section organization that are due to use of xml2rfc. For instance, I > couldn't figure out a good way of putting the note to send comments on > the draft to the WG somewhere more appropriate than the Scope, such as > with the Authors' Addresses. Much of this is probably due to my lack > of fluency with xml2rfc. I'm not an xml2rfc expert either, but IIRC, you can add a <note title="foo"> section in the <front> of the document. > I'm also not happy with the substantial duplication of instructions > between injecting, relaying, and serving agents and think that if we could > find a clean way of not repeating ourselves, we could shorten the draft by > several pages. I'll take a look and see if I can come up with some kind of consolidation, although I'm not good at making miracles happen -- just ask my kids ;) > One other general note: I have, over the past month, put in roughly 25 > hours into this effort, which is a one-time expenditure that I can't > continue. Going forward, I'm willing to devote one to two hours a week on > USEFOR but no more. Anything that doesn't fit within that time is likely > to wait until the following week; I just have too many other committments > that I can't drop for USEFOR work. I expect this is substantially less > time than Charles has put in, and as a result I expect I'll be > substantially less responsive than he has been. WG participants (and > chairs) should bear that in mind when deciding on what role for which I > would be useful. I'm willing to work on USEFOR-related work, but only > with that time constraint. I would be able to find enough cycles to do editing on this draft if it moves forward. -- Kenneth Murchison Systems Programmer Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer Carnegie Mellon University Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB2Cg8RH049535; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:42:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB2Cg8XH049534; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:42:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB2Cg5Iu049513 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:42:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from richard@highwayman.com) Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=happyday.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1GqUBt-000JZ0-CG; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 12:42:02 +0000 Message-ID: <Swk36+HMRXcFFAuU@highwayman.com> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 12:40:44 +0000 To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.03 M <zdz$+jH$77$4tPKLm6e+de7cRx> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes >The WG decided right at the start that a mvgroup control message was >needed. I think the view was that it had to come sooner or later, that it >might cause some initial pain, but if it had to be done, then nothing was >gained by postponing it. well we seem to have lasted many years since then without it -- so I'm quite happy to see it ignored even longer >If we >don't do it now, then nobody ever will. I'm happy with that view too - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBRXF0TJoAxkTY1oPiEQJKngCgvVDMKpyX518S8QRx/A2CFfz5JyUAn1uc 36nUL6yCDURPaUQqrJMn4JG4 =DYdK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB299dTs033209; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:09:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB299dJB033208; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:09:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB299cWe033202 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:09:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 51C2A4C2C4 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:09:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354244C1D0 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:09:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 323BEE7E4F; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:09:38 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message In-Reply-To: <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message of "Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:04:58 -0800") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:09:38 -0800 Message-ID: <87mz663bql.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > Incidentally, the current USEPRO draft contradicts itself; it first says > that the articles MUST NOT be altered in any way when they're moved, and > then says that the Xref header may contain entries for the new group. Oh, I see, it's not a contradiction; I just had to squint at it right. It's talking about articles that arrived *after* the mvgroup message, and I was thinking about articles that arrived *before* it. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB296M29032943; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:06:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB296MZi032942; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:06:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB296L64032936 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:06:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 312034C125 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:06:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0584BF1D for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:06:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E447CE7E4F; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:06:20 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 submitted Organization: The Eyrie Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:06:20 -0800 Message-ID: <87r6vi3bw3.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> I've just submitted draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 to the I-D editor. You can also get a copy now from: <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/usefor/usepro/> In that directory is the text draft, the HTML version of the draft, and the original XML source. I will keep that directory up to date if I produce any additional versions of the draft. I haven't had a chance to wrap any nice HTML around it yet, or update my other pages about USEFOR activities. Charles is listed as the co-author because the text is heavily based on his draft, uses large chunks of his writing, and has benefitted greatly from the work that he has done. Please note, however, that every decision about what was included in this draft is solely my responsibility; please do not assume that Charles supports its content or wording unless he explicitly says so. If you think something in the draft is wrong, I'm the person to complain to. This draft is not appreciably shorter and is still organized around roughly the same lines, although I changed the order of some sections. There are lots of minor changes to language, and I do not claim that they're all for the better. Many are an artifact of the process I used to produce the draft; rather than editing the existing text, I started with the current draft in another window and wrote a description of the same protocol (with those changes that I felt should be made) in mostly my own terms. I did, however, freely copy from the existing draft if I felt that it expressed a particular concept in a way that I liked, so you will see a great deal of similarity of language. I already commented separately on the technical changes that I made (and there are probably others that I missed). Here's a brief summary of the editorial changes: * I tried to keep the document focused tightly on its scope and removed much discussion that I felt was outside its scope. This includes most of the NOTEs; there are only a few places where I added a NOTE where there wasn't one previously, and many places where I removed a NOTE. I tried to be very clear about what was within the scope of the protocol and what was not, and omitted discussion of areas that were not even if the discussion was interesting. * I tried to remove all references to policies, hierarchy administrators, and other terms for the organization of Usenet. This is partly because I felt they were out of scope for the protocol and partly because I tried to make the document general to any Netnews network and avoid any statements specific or unique to Usenet. Such matters can be discussed in USEAGE. * I attempted to remove mentions of constraints on agents that were not protocol constraints. For example, my draft simply says that a moderator may do anything they like to a message; there is no mention of compliance with a moderation policy, since that's not part of the protocol. From a protocol perspective, there are no restrictions on the actions of a moderator. * The Security Considerations section has been substantially modified. I mostly rewrote it, although I think several paragraphs survive mostly unscathed. * There are numerous minor formatting changes and a few oddities of section organization that are due to use of xml2rfc. For instance, I couldn't figure out a good way of putting the note to send comments on the draft to the WG somewhere more appropriate than the Scope, such as with the Authors' Addresses. Much of this is probably due to my lack of fluency with xml2rfc. * I have not followed Charles's lead in the renaming of serving agents to storage agents; the former sounds more correct to me. I'm not happy with the readability of the instructions for Path construction. Charles has a new version in his latest draft that may be much better. It may be even better to pull all Path discussion into a separate section of its own (or a subsection of duties) and just reference it from the duties sections of the specific agents. I'm also not happy with the substantial duplication of instructions between injecting, relaying, and serving agents and think that if we could find a clean way of not repeating ourselves, we could shorten the draft by several pages. One other general note: I have, over the past month, put in roughly 25 hours into this effort, which is a one-time expenditure that I can't continue. Going forward, I'm willing to devote one to two hours a week on USEFOR but no more. Anything that doesn't fit within that time is likely to wait until the following week; I just have too many other committments that I can't drop for USEFOR work. I expect this is substantially less time than Charles has put in, and as a result I expect I'll be substantially less responsive than he has been. WG participants (and chairs) should bear that in mind when deciding on what role for which I would be useful. I'm willing to work on USEFOR-related work, but only with that time constraint. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB28e83o031069; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:40:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB28e8Xk031068; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:40:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB28e7i9031062 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:40:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B6144C58D for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 00:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04AD64C5BD for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 00:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DEDF7E7E4F; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 00:40:05 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document In-Reply-To: <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:12:41 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:40:05 -0800 Message-ID: <87zma63d3u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >> * Completely ban reinjection as permitted in the current draft. This >> allows a much sharper and clearer distinction between articles and >> proto-articles and simplifies the descriptions of both posting and >> injecting agents. Instead, state that agents that wish to transfer >> articles between two separate Netnews networks are gateways, are >> subject to the requirements of a gateway, and must rewrite the articles >> into proto-articles and inject them as normal. > Well it was you who said, when we discussed it a couple of years back, > that reinjection was going to happen whether we liked it or not and > occasionally it might even be sensible. In general, after going through the entire draft, I changed my opinion or found a better solution to several problems that I'd previously not seen a good way of handling. It's a very useful exercise; it gave me a new perspective on the protocol as a whole. The point that I hadn't realized before is that defining systems that are trying to do reinjection as gateways not only makes logical sense (they're gatewaying between two disconnected Netnews networks), it produces all the right results in the protocol, applies the correct warnings and restrictions for doing reinjection safely, and and makes the whole protocol description fall out more neatly. It also puts the entire onus for getting it right on the posting agent that's doing reinjection rather than requiring the injecting agent to guess at different cases, which places the complexity on the agent that's doing the unusual thing. >> * Drop all description of the batch format and don't allow batches to be >> sent via application/news-transmission. The batch format described in >> the current draft isn't sufficient to describe existing practice anyway >> (it doesn't handle compression), and sending batches via e-mail in >> application/news-transmission is a new feature with marginal use. I'll >> describe the full batch format if I ever get around to writing up the >> NNTP XBATCH extension. > Batch format was only ever used for UUCP, where it was indeed necessary. It's also used by the NNTP XBATCH extension. Not that I think many people are using that (it was added to INN largely because it was trivial to do given that INN already had batch support because of its UUCP support), but it's rather neat and is the only current way to transfer compressed news via NNTP. > It was in application/newstransmission because Henry Spencer put it > there when he registered it. Ah, that explains it. Well, I'd love to know if anyone is actually using it. So far as I know, no one is even using application/news-transmission, but of course I may not have heard about it. From the perspective of our draft, it's a very odd sideline that adds about a page of text for something that essentially no one is going to care about, and adds a few points of complexity that we've had to deal with before (such as how the batch format counts bytes). > And if you are going to use tunnelling through email as a method of > transporting news, which you might still want to do in some unusual > situations, then it might still be useful. OTOH, you could still get the > same effect by using a huge multipart/mixed with one article in each > part, so it is no huge deal to take the feature out. It is in any case > forbidden for sending to moderators. Yeah, that's the way I felt about it. > I was not aware that the present description of batch format was > deficient (it is largely taken from Son-of-1036). I have quite some > experience of using batch format, both in UUCP and now in the interface > between my NEWNEWS suck feed and my server, since CNEWS performs rather > poorly in the face of large numbers of single-article batches. I'm surprised, given that you're using UUCP, that you're not using compressed batches. I know that most of the INN users who have submitted bugs and feedback about INN's UUCP batch support are. The generalized batch format starts with a line of the form: #! <processor> If <processor> is rnews, that line is followed by a byte count of an article. Other defined values for <processor>, however, are: cunbatch (far and away the most common) c7unbatch gunbatch cunbatch indicates that the batch is compressed with standard Unix .Z compression (although in practice I bet a lot of cunbatch batches are actually gunbatch batches). gunbatch indicates that it's compressed with gzip. c7unbatch indicates that it's compressed and then a content transfer encoding is applied to make the data 7-bit; the content transfer encoding used is unique to news batches so far as I know (it is not base64 or uuencode). It is "defined" as follows: ** The encoding uses characters from 0x20 (' ') through 0x7A ('z'). ** (That fits nicely into the UUCP 'f' protocol by Piet Beertema.) First, ** expand three eight-bit charcters into four six-bit ones. Collect ** until we have 13, and spread the last one over the first 12, so that ** we have 12 6.5-bit characters. Since there are very few half-bit ** machines, collect them into pairs, making six 13-bit characters. We ** can do this as A * 91 + B where A and B are less then 91 after we add ** 0x20 to make it printable. ** ** And if you thought that was unclear, then we won't even get into the ** terminating conditions! Obviously c7unbatch is not horribly useful these days, but INN still does support it. I don't know if it's still used in the wild. Once you apply the initial processor, you then reiterate on the enclosed contents, which will generally then begin with #! rnews. The full batch protocol is not horribly useful when transmitting batches via e-mail, since you have to encode the e-mail to 8bit anyway and then you lose most or all of the benefit of compression. I can see why Henry would have omitted it in a MIME type registration when those registrations were basically only for e-mail. However, when using batches over binary-clean channels, such as UUCP, it's quite helpful. >> * Add charset parameters for application/news-groupinfo and >> application/news-checkgroups. We can't just tell everyone to use >> ASCII; they aren't now, and they're not going to. Having explicit >> charset information at least allows someone to do something sane while >> still meeting the requirements of NNTP to use UTF-8. > No, that would be most unwise until we have resolved how > internationalized newsgroup-names are going to look, because they need > to appear in the same file, and they really need to appear there in the > same form as they do elsewhere. No, you can convert between character sets. But only if you know what character set you're dealing with. Tagged data is *always* better than untagged data. If you know the charset of the data, you at least have a fighting chance at doing something with it if it's not in the charset that you need. If you don't know the charset of the data, you're doomed. There is never any reason not to say what the charset is; it never hurts you, and it stands a good chance of helping you. Saying that all checkgroups and newgroup group descriptions are in ASCII is not helpful, because they're not. Saying it in our document won't make it so; it will just confuse implementors when they discover that writing to our document produces software that doesn't work in the real world. People are sending non-ASCII newsgroup descriptions right now and aren't going to stop, since their languages cannot be represented in ASCII. Given that, the choice is between descriptions tagged with a character set and descriptions that are in some random 8-bit character set you have to guess based on the hierarchy the control message affects. I think that's an easy choice. Knowing the character set may not get us everything we need later. It's possible that, for reasons of normalization, we will eventually have to require checkgroups to be in UTF-8. However, adding a charset parameter does nothing to hinder that and actually makes it easier to specify and detect. If it turns out that's what we have to say, then we can require that the charset parameter always be either ASCII or UTF-8. In the meantime, implementors need to do something with those non-ASCII descriptions that come right now with ASCII newsgroup names, and in fact people are already implementing charset guessing code so that they can convert incoming newsgroup descriptions into UTF-8. This parameter would allow us to encourage implementors to make a simple change in their checkgroups message format and thereby make life massively easier for those trying to maintain a newsgroups file in a single encoding and thereby comply with an NNTP SHOULD. > Years ago, we had plans to put headers, including newsgroup-names, in > UTF-8. Now the EAI working group is trying to do UTF-8 headers for > email. It that endeavour succeeds (it is to be an Experimental Protocol > according to present plans), then it is most likely that Netnews would > just pile in behind it. In which case the Newsgroups File would be in > UTF-8, which would tie in nicely with NNTP. But I would not want to > allow other charsets in there in the interim, because we might have to > undo it. There's only something to undo if one assumes that adding the charset parameter permits non-ASCII checkgroups when they aren't currently permitted. Since that horse has already left the barn, I don't see anything new introduced by adding the charset parameter that would need to be undone later in such an eventuality. > Now it you were to propose that the Checkgroups etc should henceforth be > in UTF-8 regardless, that would be a different matter which I might well > support. That's a much harder migration for existing control message senders, and therefore much less likely to succeed, than getting them to just add the charset that their descriptions are already written in. The new MIME types are already going to be a hard sell; I almost proposed taking them out, and only didn't when I contemplated trying to write a formal description of the newgroup control message body searching that news servers do now. >> * Recommend use of the control hierarchy for storing control messages >> rather than storing them in normal groups (upgraded from a NOTE). > I have no real problem with that. But it is introducing a *new*feature*, > horror of horrors :-(, and it is dealing with matters which are not seen > "on the wire" - even greater horrors. This isn't a new feature -- it's already implemented by every widely used news server that I'm aware of. It's a feature not described in RFC 1036, but there are a ton of those. And the feature is indeed seen on the wire; it's seen in the dialog between the reading agent and the serving agent. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB2850R0028760; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:05:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB2850f5028759; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:05:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB284x3U028746 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:04:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D219D4C639 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 00:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961D74CEAE for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 00:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8C631E7E4F; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 00:04:58 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: The mvgroup control message In-Reply-To: <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:51:42 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:04:58 -0800 Message-ID: <874pse4tat.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes: > Moreover, I don't think experimental protocols are a good idea in > Usenet, since the whole system really has to sing to the same tune (that > does not stop you doing experimental things in user agents, such as > trying out different fancy killfiles, or threading, or whatever else, > but not with serving agents). That's not an argument against experimental protocols. That's an argument against ever introducing anything new, since there's no way that you could ever introduce anything new and have the whole system immediately sing the same tune. This is actually *not* the case for control messages, which are particularly amenable to different servers doing different things and have, from the start, allowed the introduction of completely new control messages without hurting anything. > Now ideally, a mvgroup should, at one stroke, remove the old group, add > the new, cause all existing articles magically to move to the new, and > take care of running threads. Sounds like hard work, and the WG > challenged me to produce an implementation; which I did, on CNEWS, and I > tested it pretty thoroughly (though not on the live Usenet, of course, > because this is one experiment you cannot do live). It's implementable, and I do appreciate you writing an implementation and seeing how it can be done. Unfortunately, the implementation you did is in a news server that's not widely used and not particularly maintained, so it doesn't count much towards deployed base, although it does count towards implementation experience. However, moving articles between groups after they're stored pose weird protocol concerns that I am not at all convinced the current proposal has adequately dealt with, even if it were widely implemented. For example, unless you rewrite the Newsgroups header of the old articles or add a Followup-To header or followups to articles that were moved from the old group will be sad (if not on the local server then on someone else's server). Articles crossposted into the old group will need to have their Xref headers updated (and therefore will have to have their overview records regenerated) or crosspost chasing into the new group will not work properly. News readers need to be told somehow that the group has moved so that they can update subscriptions automatically, and there's currently no facility for doing that (we'd want to at least standardize the alias flag in conjunction with this). When I can come up with three problems like that just off the top of my head, my impression is that the concept is not fully baked and doesn't work well with the rest of Usenet without more elaboration of exactly how it should be done. Incidentally, the current USEPRO draft contradicts itself; it first says that the articles MUST NOT be altered in any way when they're moved, and then says that the Xref header may contain entries for the new group. > However, it transpired that it was not so easily done in INN, and so we > backed off and left the full works as an ideal to be aimed at (not even > a SHOULD), and made the actual requirements much smaller. Indeed, if you > just implement it as a clone of newgroup (which is surely easily added > to any existing server) you are still conformant (well, you break a > "SHOULD", but when did that ever stop anybody :-( ). Implementing mvgroup as a clone of newgroup, or even a clone of newgroup and a delayed rmgroup, is pointless. That doesn't solve any of the problems that mvgroup was introduced to solve. Unless readers are automatically redirected to the new newsgroup and, ideally, the old articles are also preserved, there's no reason to bother with it, since it won't be any better than what's already available now. Honestly, I think the place to start would be standarizing the alias flag in LIST, introducing a new NNTP response code to GROUP that would act like an HTTP redirect, and defining the NNTP behavior. If that were done, the mvgroup control message implementation would fall out fairly naturally. (Although introducing a new GROUP response code would be tricky; extension negotiation mostly doesn't work that way. One might have to introduce a new GROUP command to do this properly. It's going to be rather tricky to do this in a way that's really effective.) > So the question is whether you can foresee how it would be introduced. > Essentially, it will not prosper unless the users press for it. But if > it is at least in the standard, then some hierarchy-admin can be > persuaded to give it a go (and it removes the argument of the > naysayers). This to me is not a persuasive argument for inclusion of a feature in the base document. mvgroup control messages are entirely harmless at sites that don't implement them; there's nothing about experimental status instead of standards track that prevents a hierarchy administrator from giving them a try. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB25DNIq016289; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:13:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB25DN53016288; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:13:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB25DLdp016269 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:13:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster*pop3$clerew^man#ac#uk) by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45710b6f.1ffe.95 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:13:19 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB25DIEN020037 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:13:18 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB25DIJM020034 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:13:18 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23775 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document Message-ID: <J9M2t5.7sn@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:12:41 GMT Lines: 128 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >The specific major technical changes that I am proposing are (and I may >have missed some, and some that I consider minor others may not): > * Drop mvgroup and initial articles. I have dealt with mvgroup in a separate thread. As for initial articles, I could easily be persuaded to drop them. They were a fancy idea and the WG seemed willing to go along with them, so they stayed. > * Completely ban reinjection as permitted in the current draft. This > allows a much sharper and clearer distinction between articles and > proto-articles and simplifies the descriptions of both posting and > injecting agents. Instead, state that agents that wish to transfer > articles between two separate Netnews networks are gateways, are > subject to the requirements of a gateway, and must rewrite the articles > into proto-articles and inject them as normal. Well it was you who said, when we discussed it a couple of years back, that reinjection was going to happen whether we liked it or not and occasionally it might even be sensible. So all that the present draft does is to make sure that, if it is done, then it is done competently and consistently (e.g. you don't alter the Injection-Date). > * Drop all description of the batch format and don't allow batches to be > sent via application/news-transmission. The batch format described in > the current draft isn't sufficient to describe existing practice anyway > (it doesn't handle compression), and sending batches via e-mail in > application/news-transmission is a new feature with marginal use. I'll > describe the full batch format if I ever get around to writing up the > NNTP XBATCH extension. Batch format was only ever used for UUCP, where it was indeed necessary. It was in application/newstransmission because Henry Spencer put it there when he registered it. And if you are going to use tunnelling through email as a method of transporting news, which you might still want to do in some unusual situations, then it might still be useful. OTOH, you could still get the same effect by using a huge multipart/mixed with one article in each part, so it is no huge deal to take the feature out. It is in any case forbidden for sending to moderators. I was not aware that the present description of batch format was deficient (it is largely taken from Son-of-1036). I have quite some experience of using batch format, both in UUCP and now in the interface between my NEWNEWS suck feed and my server, since CNEWS performs rather poorly in the face of large numbers of single-article batches. In any case, we only describe the batch format to preserve the knowledge of how it is supposed to be done (and, who knows, when Osama bin Laden hacks his way into the infrastructure of the Internet and brings the whole edifice to its knees, we may yet be glad that UUCP is still there :-). But if the batch format description is materially wrong, then it needs to be fixed. > * Make use of the new path diag-keywords optional but recommended. My draft makes it MUST/SHOULD as an issue to be decided. > * Add charset parameters for application/news-groupinfo and > application/news-checkgroups. We can't just tell everyone to use > ASCII; they aren't now, and they're not going to. Having explicit > charset information at least allows someone to do something sane while > still meeting the requirements of NNTP to use UTF-8. No, that would be most unwise until we have resolved how internationalized newsgroup-names are going to look, because they need to appear in the same file, and they really need to appear there in the same form as they do elsewhere. Years ago, we had plans to put headers, including newsgroup-names, in UTF-8. Now the EAI working group is trying to do UTF-8 headers for email. It that endeavour succeeds (it is to be an Experimental Protocol according to present plans), then it is most likely that Netnews would just pile in behind it. In which case the Newsgroups File would be in UTF-8, which would tie in nicely with NNTP. But I would not want to allow other charsets in there in the interim, because we might have to undo it. Now it you were to propose that the Checkgroups etc should henceforth be in UTF-8 regardless, that would be a different matter which I might well support. > * Recommend use of the control hierarchy for storing control messages > rather than storing them in normal groups (upgraded from a NOTE). I have no real problem with that. But it is introducing a *new*feature*, horror of horrors :-(, and it is dealing with matters which are not seen "on the wire" - even greater horrors. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB25DNHh016291; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:13:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB25DNd9016290; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:13:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB25DLt4016268 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:13:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3&clerew^man&ac*uk) by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 45710b6f.1547c.1ba5 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:13:19 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB25DI9V020029 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:13:18 GMT Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kB25DHAw020026 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:13:17 GMT To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:23774 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Subject: The mvgroup control message Message-ID: <J9Lz26.3wM@clerew.man.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:51:42 GMT Lines: 86 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> In <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: >The specific major technical changes that I am proposing are (and I may >have missed some, and some that I consider minor others may not): > * Drop mvgroup ... OK, I think this is a big enough topic that it needs a separate thread (maybe even an Issue number). The WG decided right at the start that a mvgroup control message was needed. I think the view was that it had to come sooner or later, that it might cause some initial pain, but if it had to be done, then nothing was gained by postponing it. Moreover, I don't think experimental protocols are a good idea in Usenet, since the whole system really has to sing to the same tune (that does not stop you doing experimental things in user agents, such as trying out different fancy killfiles, or threading, or whatever else, but not with serving agents). I think the argument for mvgroup was that newsadmins could usually be relied upon to create newgroups, but were extremely reluctant to do rmgroups (I think even now some of them do not realise that PGVERIFY has removed the main difficulty with bogus rmgroup commands). So it was thought that including the rmgroup in the same command as the newgroup would encourage newsadmins to consider them as a single operation. There is no doubt that groups need to be renamed from time to time, but every time someone proposes such a thing (often with good reason) the naysayers on the config groups say "it will never work", and so it gets dropped (but in spite of that, we have successfully renamed groups in uk.* on a small number of occasions - and we have done the other 'impossible' thing, which is to moderate groups in situ, as well). Now ideally, a mvgroup should, at one stroke, remove the old group, add the new, cause all existing articles magically to move to the new, and take care of running threads. Sounds like hard work, and the WG challenged me to produce an implementation; which I did, on CNEWS, and I tested it pretty thoroughly (though not on the live Usenet, of course, because this is one experiment you cannot do live). However, it transpired that it was not so easily done in INN, and so we backed off and left the full works as an ideal to be aimed at (not even a SHOULD), and made the actual requirements much smaller. Indeed, if you just implement it as a clone of newgroup (which is surely easily added to any existing server) you are still conformant (well, you break a "SHOULD", but when did that ever stop anybody :-( ). So the question is whether you can foresee how it would be introduced. Essentially, it will not prosper unless the users press for it. But if it is at least in the standard, then some hierarchy-admin can be persuaded to give it a go (and it removes the argument of the naysayers). Of course he will still have to follow it up with a newgroup, and rmgroups after a suitable waiting period, and that procedure might well have to continue for years (indeed, the 'rmgroup' after the decent interval is still a MUST in my draft for ever). It would be up to hierarchy-admins to decide when it was safe to abandon the newgroup. But then, once a few mvgroups were out, users would start to complain to their news servers that the mvgroup had not been honoured (just as they frequently have to complain that newgroups have not been honoured at present). Sadly, the way Usenet currently operates, users leaning on servers admins is regarded as a normal part of the process. There are some excellently run sites out there, but many more (usually run by big companies who are more concerned with making money and keeping up with the latest fashions that in providing a decent service) that are not. Anyway, once mvgroups are sort-of-working users will notice that articles to the old group are not automatically appearing in the new (and they will contrast that with reports of other providers who have managed to do it). More leaning on providers.... So yes, it is going to be a slow process - that is inevitable. But it won't happen at all unless someone sets it going by either creating a chicken or creating an egg. We have the oppotunity to do that. If we don't do it now, then nobody ever will. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1KiAFH076488; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:44:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB1KiASp076487; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:44:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1Ki92t076481 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:44:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E25D34C951 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:44:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1444C878 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:44:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 932AFE7DEB; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:44:08 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document In-Reply-To: <457082EC.7589@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:30:52 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <457082EC.7589@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 12:44:08 -0800 Message-ID: <87ac27bb3b.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> I am *delighted* that the de.* checkgroups includes de.alt.*. > That gives you about three binary groups (de.alt.dateien.*), though. That's fine. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1JlDvr070072; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:47:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB1JlDIl070071; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:47:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1JlCgA070063 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:47:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GqELn-0007UU-1Z for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:47:11 +0100 Received: from du-001-151.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.151]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:47:11 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-151.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:47:11 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: USEFOR-11 troubles Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:46:33 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 19 Message-ID: <45708699.1297@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <45704D2B.7596@xyzzy.claranet.de> <8764cvtr2x.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-151.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > For <diag-keyword>, I would move the acceptable list of keywords > (SEEN, POSTED, and MISMATCH) into USEFOR with *brief* descriptions > of their meaning and leave to USEPRO only the specific instructions > of how to apply those meanings. This would also simplify writing > USEPRO, since USEPRO is laid out as a list of instructions and > doesn't lend itself well to a digression on providing additional > syntax for Path <diag-keyword>s. That went through a rather complex poll - 2nd poll - rough consensus procedure, and while I don't recall exactly who said what my proposal to solve it in USEFOR didn't make it. Of course it's now harder to list all details in USEPRO. The theory was that it's easier to add further <diag-keyword>s later. Let's stick to that decision. Maybe remove the obscure X-keywords as unnecessary. Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1JVQ3U068265; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:31:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB1JVQDj068264; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:31:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1JVOZA068254 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:31:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GqE6T-00035d-G7 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:31:21 +0100 Received: from du-001-151.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.151]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:31:21 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-151.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:31:21 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:30:52 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 11 Message-ID: <457082EC.7589@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-151.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: > I am *delighted* that the de.* checkgroups includes de.alt.*. That gives you about three binary groups (de.alt.dateien.*), though. > If one really wishes to have an administratively separate hierarchy, > it's far better to do what it.* did in creating it-alt.*. There won't be any mass renamings, let alone without 'mvgroup'... :-) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1ILUbD060550; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:21:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB1ILU9J060549; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:21:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1ILRPO060542 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:21:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 314B24CCF0 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:21:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D974C2E3 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:21:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F0F95E7916; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:21:26 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: USEFOR-11 troubles In-Reply-To: <45704D2B.7596@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:41:31 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <45704D2B.7596@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:21:26 -0800 Message-ID: <8764cvtr2x.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > Hi, Usefor-11 didn't make it in the first attempt, it got two [DISCUSS]: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2253&filename=draft-ietf-usefor-usefor > Sam proposes to use a normative reference to USEPRO. Russ Houley's > [DISCUSS] is in a similar direction, he wants to make sure that the > "security considerations" in USEPRO (referenced by USEFOR) are not > lost, i.e. published in a RFC, not only in an I-D. Reviewing USEPRO brought home to me that it's not possible to implement a useful piece of Netnews software other than a pure article reader with only the information in USEFOR. That doesn't necessarily mean that USEFOR can't advance separately as an underlying format which is then used by a later standard, but that's definitely the approach we'd have to take to sever the documents, which means that USEFOR will need to have no normative references to USEPRO. There are several that seem rather normative to me having just gone through all of USEPRO, apart from the security considerations. Section 3.1.4 says that control messages are defined in USEPRO, section 3.1.5 defers to USEPRO for the definition of <diag-keyword>, section 3.1.6 defers to USEPRO for the content of the Subject header (and that reference I think could simply be dropped, as the only place that USEPRO discusses the Subject header is in the context of a followup and then only as a MAY), section 3.2 states that further requirements for optional header fields are in USEPRO, section 3.2.3 defers to USEPRO for valid control message <verb>s, and section 3.2.12 defines the action of Supersedes in terms of cancel control messages defined in USEPRO. On the surface, it's hard to argue against some or most of those being normative references. Control messages are the hardest problem here, and I expect are the most likely to prompt a DISCUSS. At the least, I think all article syntax including acceptable values for control message <verb> and for Path <diag-keyword> should be defined in USEFOR to make it a standalone format document. That's actually easier than it sounds, since for control message verbs *all* values that fit the current syntax are acceptable and interpretation is up to the protocol being used, so there's no need to defer to USEPRO as aggressively as USEFOR currently does. For <diag-keyword>, I would move the acceptable list of keywords (SEEN, POSTED, and MISMATCH) into USEFOR with *brief* descriptions of their meaning and leave to USEPRO only the specific instructions of how to apply those meanings. This would also simplify writing USEPRO, since USEPRO is laid out as a list of instructions and doesn't lend itself well to a digression on providing additional syntax for Path <diag-keyword>s. The other references could be dropped or downgraded in their wording easily except Supersedes, where the description would need to be rewritten without reference to cancel control messages. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1I7QEL058565; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:07:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB1I7QqG058564; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:07:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1I7PpK058557 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:07:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 54B484D0C4 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:07:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49CAE4D0CF for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:07:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 40E1AE7DC7; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:07:23 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document In-Reply-To: <4570523D.6BD6@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:03:09 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4570470C.7030808@mibsoftware.com> <4570523D.6BD6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:07:23 -0800 Message-ID: <87ac27trqc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: >> What is the disadvantage with doing a separate experimental RFC? > In theory fine. But my interpretation of Russ' and your comments > is that it's pointless: The USEFOR drafts proposed 'mvgroup' for > some years, so far nobody implemented it, no additional experiment > necessary to confirm its death. > Not volunteering to write a separate 'mvgroup' I-D: Frank > P.S.: BTW, we need the WG Charter update soon, Russ proposed to > add an I-D about news batches. An I-D covering the XBATCH extension is mostly an NNTP I-D; the batch format would be ancillary. If I wrote such a thing, it would be as an informational RFC via individual submission, not as a WG document. The batch format really has nothing to do with USEFOR. It's a transport artifact. Prior to working on that, though, I'd instead document the pgpverify and PGPMoose protocols as informational RFCs, and those are more on-topic for this WG. But I have no idea when I'll have time. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1I58hI058325; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:05:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB1I58Uv058324; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:05:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1I57W1058318 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:05:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id EF43C4CDCE for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:05:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D007E4C5C5 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:05:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B4244E7916; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:05:06 -0800 (PST) From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document In-Reply-To: <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:52:09 +0100") Organization: The Eyrie References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:05:06 -0800 Message-ID: <87ejrjtru5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes: > The last time I watched a de.alt vs. de.!alt discussion most users > claimed that de.alt is an integral part of de.all -- my personal > impression (arguing on the side of the minority, who considered that as > unfriendly takeover of de.alt). We could remove that case as example in > usepro-06 5.2.4. </sigh> As a news server administrator whose users want me to carry de.* but who cares nothing at all about newsgroup creation policies in de.*, I am *delighted* that the de.* checkgroups includes de.alt.*. If it didn't, I wouldn't carry de.alt.* at all. If one really wishes to have an administratively separate hierarchy, it's far better to do what it.* did in creating it-alt.*. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1GnMLa049176; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:49:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB1GnMTD049175; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:49:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1GnKVW049169 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:49:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E8F2596F0; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:46:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06423-06; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:45:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2062596EE; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:45:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:49:07 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: USEFOR-11 troubles Message-ID: <7E5729305F233C77D2394C40@[192.168.1.103]> In-Reply-To: <45704D2B.7596@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <45704D2B.7596@xyzzy.claranet.de> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.6 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Thanks Frank - I have "compose a reply" on my TODO list. I'll CC the WG when I do. Harald --On 1. desember 2006 16:41 +0100 Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote: > > Hi, Usefor-11 didn't make it in the first attempt, it got two [DISCUSS]: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&b > allot_id=2253&filename=draft-ietf-usefor-usefor > > Sam proposes to use a normative reference to USEPRO. Russ Houley's > [DISCUSS] is in a similar direction, he wants to make sure that the > "security considerations" in USEPRO (referenced by USEFOR) are not > lost, i.e. published in a RFC, not only in an I-D. > > Sam has some questions about mail2news gateways. For some "more > discussion" about the Article Format GMaNe offers a list archive > with about 25,000 articles since 1997, AFAIK mail2news gateways > had no serious difficulties to transform 822 to 1036 format in the > last decades, and MESSFOR to USEFOR is in essence the same issue: > > Add magic SP, emulate missing References as explained in 2822 if > there's an In-Reply-To, fix most obs-stuff because it's illegal in > NetNews, add missing Message-ID or better reject mails without a > Message-ID if there can be other gateways of the same article, the > works, some of the technical details will be discussed in USEPRO. > > Discussing gateway considerations in USEFOR would be a bad plan, > but maybe we're forced to accept a normative USEPRO reference. If > that's the case we could also fix one [COMMENT] in the evaluation: > > s/192.0.168.1/192.0.2.1/ RFC 4408 got that right, no idea why > we missed it for USEFOR, is that a missing feature in 'idnits' ? > > Frank > > > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1GjEsW048704; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:45:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB1GjEbh048703; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:45:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (smtp.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.10.81]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1GjCGp048697 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:45:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from murch@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from [192.168.137.22] (ntonawnd-cuda1-cable-bundle-68-69-73-26.kntnny.adelphia.net [68.69.73.26]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kB1GjBS5029728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:45:11 -0500 Message-ID: <45705C16.9070202@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:45:10 -0500 From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Organization: Carnegie Mellon University User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: USEFOR-11 troubles References: <45704D2B.7596@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <45704D2B.7596@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 128.2.10.81 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann wrote: > Discussing gateway considerations in USEFOR would be a bad plan, > but maybe we're forced to accept a normative USEPRO reference. If > that's the case we could also fix one [COMMENT] in the evaluation: > > s/192.0.168.1/192.0.2.1/ RFC 4408 got that right, no idea why > we missed it for USEFOR, is that a missing feature in 'idnits' ? Right. That entire example was already in my copy changed to: posting-host = "posting.example.com:192.0.2.1" I will make the change when the I-D gets to AUTH48, unless we need to put out a -12 to fix the reference to USEPRO. -- Kenneth Murchison Systems Programmer Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer Carnegie Mellon University Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1GADgK043899; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:10:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB1GADHX043898; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:10:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1GABWJ043876 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:10:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GqAx3-0007Cc-Ky for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:09:29 +0100 Received: from pd9fba988.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.251.169.136]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:09:25 +0100 Received: from nobody by pd9fba988.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:09:25 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:03:09 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 16 Message-ID: <4570523D.6BD6@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4570470C.7030808@mibsoftware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9fba988.dip0.t-ipconnect.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > What is the disadvantage with doing a separate experimental RFC? In theory fine. But my interpretation of Russ' and your comments is that it's pointless: The USEFOR drafts proposed 'mvgroup' for some years, so far nobody implemented it, no additional experiment necessary to confirm its death. Not volunteering to write a separate 'mvgroup' I-D: Frank P.S.: BTW, we need the WG Charter update soon, Russ proposed to add an I-D about news batches. If anybody here's interested we could also add the news/nntp URI stuff, otherwise I'll intend to send a 'publication request' on the day when USEFOR is approved. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1Foskp041500; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 08:50:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB1FosYk041499; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 08:50:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1Foq29041492 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 08:50:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GqAcE-0000F9-3N for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:47:54 +0100 Received: from pd9fba988.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.251.169.136]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:47:54 +0100 Received: from nobody by pd9fba988.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:47:54 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: USEFOR-11 troubles Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:41:31 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 30 Message-ID: <45704D2B.7596@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9fba988.dip0.t-ipconnect.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Hi, Usefor-11 didn't make it in the first attempt, it got two [DISCUSS]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2253&filename=draft-ietf-usefor-usefor Sam proposes to use a normative reference to USEPRO. Russ Houley's [DISCUSS] is in a similar direction, he wants to make sure that the "security considerations" in USEPRO (referenced by USEFOR) are not lost, i.e. published in a RFC, not only in an I-D. Sam has some questions about mail2news gateways. For some "more discussion" about the Article Format GMaNe offers a list archive with about 25,000 articles since 1997, AFAIK mail2news gateways had no serious difficulties to transform 822 to 1036 format in the last decades, and MESSFOR to USEFOR is in essence the same issue: Add magic SP, emulate missing References as explained in 2822 if there's an In-Reply-To, fix most obs-stuff because it's illegal in NetNews, add missing Message-ID or better reject mails without a Message-ID if there can be other gateways of the same article, the works, some of the technical details will be discussed in USEPRO. Discussing gateway considerations in USEFOR would be a bad plan, but maybe we're forced to accept a normative USEPRO reference. If that's the case we could also fix one [COMMENT] in the evaluation: s/192.0.168.1/192.0.2.1/ RFC 4408 got that right, no idea why we missed it for USEFOR, is that a missing feature in 'idnits' ? Frank Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1FFUjT036984; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 08:15:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB1FFU87036983; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 08:15:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from relay01.pair.com (relay01.pair.com [209.68.5.15]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id kB1FFR3d036968 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 08:15:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mibsoft@mibsoftware.com) Received: (qmail 93180 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2006 15:15:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.11?) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 1 Dec 2006 15:15:25 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 208.111.235.196 Message-ID: <4570470C.7030808@mibsoftware.com> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:15:24 -0500 From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Frank Ellermann wrote: > Russ Allbery wrote: > > [mvgroup] > >>My justification is that it's an entirely experimental feature >>which has not been implemented in any news server distribution >>that I'm aware of. No one is currently issuing them > > > <sigh> Okay, so far for the dream that renaming groups could > be anything else but a nightmare in future. Even in standalone > servers like GMaNe where it would only affect some "leafnodes". What is the disadvantage with doing a separate experimental RFC? Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1CrKBk020474; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 05:53:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id kB1CrKw9020473; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 05:53:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id kB1CrIgP020466 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 05:53:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Gq7t6-0004VO-NR for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0100 Received: from pd9fba988.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.251.169.136]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0100 Received: from nobody by pd9fba988.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Subject: Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:52:09 +0100 Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> Lines: 37 Message-ID: <45702579.4D06@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <24DFD414F94DB3C6674CB0F3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <J94uyt.q1@clerew.man.ac.uk> <878xhs8vzk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <456F685F.9B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87d5747af9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9fba988.dip0.t-ipconnect.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org> Russ Allbery wrote: [mvgroup] > My justification is that it's an entirely experimental feature > which has not been implemented in any news server distribution > that I'm aware of. No one is currently issuing them <sigh> Okay, so far for the dream that renaming groups could be anything else but a nightmare in future. Even in standalone servers like GMaNe where it would only affect some "leafnodes". > The one exception, which I think may have been a mistake to > retain, was the additional arguments to checkgroups. The last time I watched a de.alt vs. de.!alt discussion most users claimed that de.alt is an integral part of de.all -- my personal impression (arguing on the side of the minority, who considered that as unfriendly takeover of de.alt). We could remove that case as example in usepro-06 5.2.4. </sigh> > USEFOR, which I was treating as sacrosanct. +1 >> Maybe we can add a recommendation to split control.cancel in >> some appropriate way (for modem users like me when they try >> to figure out if some rogue cancel bot is at it again) > I think that's more a USEAGE thing. On big servers it's almost impossible to find anything in their control.cancel, unless it's divided into sets of TLHs. If users can't "control" who or what cancelled their articles it's a Bad Thing, not only some USEAGE netiquette stuff, it's IMO technical. Frank
- Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-0… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Charles Lindsey
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Charles Lindsey
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Russ Allbery
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Russ Allbery
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Russ Allbery
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Frank Ellermann
- Moderation issues (was: Decision: Let's get draft… Russ Allbery
- Re: Moderation issues Frank Ellermann
- Re: Moderation issues Russ Allbery
- Re: Decision: Let's get draft-allbery-usefor-usep… Charles Lindsey