Re: ihave/sendme syntax (was: draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00 errata)

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

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

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

>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.

I don't see why the optionality or otherwise of the <relayer-name> should
correlate in any way with whether the list of msg-ids is in the header or
the body (except to ensure that these headers never have empty content,
which does not sound like a particularly good reason).

So I would think it better to follow Son-of-1036 and make it obligatory
regardless. I think we can assume that Henry had sufficient experience of
the way Ihave and Sendme were used at that time that it is safe to follow
his lead.

In any case, the paragraph which follows explaining how to use these two
headers is written on the assumption that a <relayer-name> will be
provided.

If any pair of existing relayers is currently using this protocol without
<relayer-name>s, then good luck to them, and 'lang may their lum reek'. 

-- 
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