Re: Plan to finish draft-ietf-usefor-usepro

["Charles Lindsey" <[e-mail]>]

In <g6kvgd$s3f$[e-mail]> "Frank Ellermann" <[e-mail]> writes:

>Remotely related, in conjunction with the "Expires:" revival
>for mail (discussed on the 822 list) I checked if usepro-09
>says something about expires/expiration that could conflict
>with this proposal.

>As expected it doesn't.  But I vaguely recall that Russ had
>a good explanation how a history works.  Was it never added
>to the draft ?  

There is no protocol action required when an Expires header is seen, so
nothing for USEPRO to specify about it (it was not mentioned in the
my earlier usepro[0-6] drafts either). Various Agents MAY (and probably
will) act upon it, but that would be a matter for USEAGE, if we ever get
that far.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [e-mail]      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 (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6TGCBaC091640 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:12:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id m6TGCBvO091639; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:12:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net [79.135.125.43]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6TGC4fL091611 for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3^clerew#man#ac&uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 488f4153.6b48.1a8 for [e-mail]; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:12:03 +0100 (envelope-sender <[e-mail]>)
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m6TGC3RF027740 for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:12:03 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id m6TGC24P027735 for [e-mail]; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:12:02 +0100 (BST)
To: [e-mail]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:24780
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plan to finish draft-ietf-usefor-usepro
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <g6kvgd$s3f$[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:12:42 GMT
Lines: 27
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>

In <g6kvgd$s3f$[e-mail]> "Frank Ellermann" <[e-mail]> writes:

>Remotely related, in conjunction with the "Expires:" revival
>for mail (discussed on the 822 list) I checked if usepro-09
>says something about expires/expiration that could conflict
>with this proposal.

>As expected it doesn't.  But I vaguely recall that Russ had
>a good explanation how a history works.  Was it never added
>to the draft ?  

There is no protocol action required when an Expires header is seen, so
nothing for USEPRO to specify about it (it was not mentioned in the
my earlier usepro[0-6] drafts either). Various Agents MAY (and probably
will) act upon it, but that would be a matter for USEAGE, if we ever get
that far.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [e-mail]      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 (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6TBC7Ju062597 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:12:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id m6TBC7Rq062593; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:12:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net [79.135.125.43]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6TBC5Jj062561 for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:12:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
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 v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 488efb04.5ae3.3a8 for [e-mail]; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:12:04 +0100 (envelope-sender <[e-mail]>)
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 m6TBC40c004446 for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:12:04 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id m6TBC4n6004443 for [e-mail]; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:12:04 +0100 (BST)
To: [e-mail]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:24779
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: #1416 (WAS:  Plan to finish ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:06:55 GMT
Lines: 38
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>

In <[e-mail]> Russ Allbery <[e-mail]> writes:

>The remaining controversy is over Injection-Date handling.  I think the WG
>reached a consensus that the language in -09 is not a good idea.  I have
>one proposed replacement text and Charles has another.  (Please someone
>else correct me if I got this wrong; it's been a long time.  All I know
>for sure is that I have a replacement text.)  I think either of those
>would be an improvement over the current text, which is muddled and not
>particularly clear.

The nature of Issue #1416 changed quite a bit over its lifetime. My
original objection was overcome when Russ proposed to allow (and even
require in some situations) User Agents to insert an Injection-Date,
which was a neat solution.

That left just one small worry. I wanted (version IC) Injection Agents to
_always_ insert an Injection-Date (except when it was already present, of
course). Russ argued (version IR) that this would sometimes cause existing
implementations to behave oddly, and proposed a less-intuitive rule
for when Injection Agents should insert it.

To avoid repeating my summary yet again, I have put it up at
   <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/drafts/issue-1416>

I still claim that Russ's propblem will arise so rarely and affect so few
readers (who might occasionally see the same article twice), that it is a
reasonable payoff in view of the simpler protocol.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [e-mail]      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 (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6SM2AV3003860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:02:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id m6SM2ATq003859; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:02:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.22.28]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6SM29Wm003852 for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:02:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E28F2D6986; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFBF2D696F; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C4167E78DA; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
To: Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Plan to finish draft-ietf-usefor-usepro
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]> (Lisa Dusseault's message of "Mon\, 28 Jul 2008 09\:45\:45 +0100")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
References: <[e-mail]>
From: Russ Allbery <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:02:08 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>

Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]> writes:

> I've consulted with the chairs, and we feel that the current version of
> draft-ietf-usefor-usepro (-09) is a definite improvement on RFC1036.
> Since there has been no activity for at least six months, and the WGLC
> was in 2006, I plan to put this document forward for IETF Last Call.  I
> will do so on or after Aug 29.  If the WG manages to close any more
> issues and issue another version, that's even better, but I will request
> publication for -09 if that's the latest version issued by Aug 29.

I will release at least one newer draft that includes the explanation of
how history works, since I believe that section is uncontroversial.  I
will try to do that soon.

The remaining controversy is over Injection-Date handling.  I think the WG
reached a consensus that the language in -09 is not a good idea.  I have
one proposed replacement text and Charles has another.  (Please someone
else correct me if I got this wrong; it's been a long time.  All I know
for sure is that I have a replacement text.)  I think either of those
would be an improvement over the current text, which is muddled and not
particularly clear.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([e-mail])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>



Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6SHQsop080154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:26:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id m6SHQsX5080153; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:26:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6SHQpsX080145 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:26:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KNWUh-0006Xi-LR for [e-mail]; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:26:47 +0000
Received: from 212.82.251.180 ([212.82.251.180]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:26:47 +0000
Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.180 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:26:47 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: [e-mail]
From:  "Frank Ellermann" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Plan to finish draft-ietf-usefor-usepro
Date:  Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:27:51 +0200
Organization:  <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <g6kvgd$s3f$[e-mail]>
References:  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To:  "Frank Ellermann" <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  quoted-printable
X-Complaints-To: [e-mail]
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.180
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>

Charles Lindsey wrote:
=20
> as always, willing to participate.

Remotely related, in conjunction with the "Expires:" revival
for mail (discussed on the 822 list) I checked if usepro-09
says something about expires/expiration that could conflict
with this proposal.

As expected it doesn't.  But I vaguely recall that Russ had
a good explanation how a history works.  Was it never added
to the draft ? =20

 Frank



Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6SGC6QS073847 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:12:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id m6SGC6pd073843; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:12:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net [79.135.125.43]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6SGC4uv073821 for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:12:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
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 v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 488defd3.14a3.d7 for [e-mail]; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:12:03 +0100 (envelope-sender <[e-mail]>)
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 m6SGC3gK022010 for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:12:03 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id m6SGC3lb022006 for [e-mail]; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:12:03 +0100 (BST)
To: [e-mail]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:24776
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plan to finish draft-ietf-usefor-usepro
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:14:31 GMT
Lines: 31
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>

In <[e-mail]> Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]> writes:

>I've consulted with the chairs, and we feel that the current version  
>of draft-ietf-usefor-usepro (-09) is a definite improvement on  
>RFC1036.  Since there has been no activity for at least six months,  
>and the WGLC was in 2006, I plan to put this document forward for IETF  
>Last Call.  I will do so on or after Aug 29.  If the WG manages to  
>close any more issues and issue another version, that's even better,  
>but I will request publication for -09 if that's the latest version  
>issued by Aug 29.

The reason there has been no activity is that the cahirs have declined
to poll the members on the main outstanding issue, to see whether or not
there is a consensus one way or the other. There is just the one important
outstanding technical issue AFAIAA.

OTOH, the actual text, and some non-technical issues such as Security
Considerations still require review.

I remains, as always, willing to participate.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [e-mail]      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 (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6S8jpl7032390 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:45:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id m6S8jp5I032389; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:45:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gateout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.22]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6S8joN2032383 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:45:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [e-mail])
Received: from gateout02 (gwsmtp.usa.net [165.212.65.102]) by gateout02.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA514BC99D for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:45:49 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GW2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout02 via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.44O)  with ESMTP id XID947mgbitx2810Xo2; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:45:49 -0000
X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN   [e-mail] GW2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET
X-USANET-MsgId: XID947mgbitx2810Xo2
Received: from lisa.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.68]) by GW2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:45:49 -0600
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Subject: Plan to finish draft-ietf-usefor-usepro 
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:45:45 +0100
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2008 08:45:49.0480 (UTC) FILETIME=[55C11A80:01C8F08E]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>

I've consulted with the chairs, and we feel that the current version  
of draft-ietf-usefor-usepro (-09) is a definite improvement on  
RFC1036.  Since there has been no activity for at least six months,  
and the WGLC was in 2006, I plan to put this document forward for IETF  
Last Call.  I will do so on or after Aug 29.  If the WG manages to  
close any more issues and issue another version, that's even better,  
but I will request publication for -09 if that's the latest version  
issued by Aug 29.

I do appreciate all the work that has gone into this and this action  
does not prevent future work, future RFCs etc.  However, it looks like  
publishing this doc completes the work USEFOR was chartered to do, and  
I expect the USEFOR WG ought to close then, so further work would have  
to involve individual submissions (if appropriate) or a new WG.

Thanks,
Lisa Dusseault