Opinion poll: #1416 When to add Injection-Date

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 11 August 2008 14:07 UTC

Message-ID: <48A0464C.9050108@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:01:48 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14ubu (X11/20080724)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Usenet <ietf-usefor@imc.org>
Subject: Opinion poll: #1416 When to add Injection-Date
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk

OK, time to close this one (hopefully).

Taking the deltas posted by Russ Allbery on August 4, 2008 at 01:37 my 
time as a starting point, I think we are down to one essential 
statement, which goes in bullet 11 of section 3.5 of 
draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-10:

ALTERNATIVE A:

+            <t>If the proto-article already had an Injection-Date header
+            field, it MUST NOT be modified or replaced.  Otherwise,
+            the injecting agent MUST add an Injection-Date header field
+            containing the current date and time.</t>


ALTERNATIVE B:

+            <t>If the proto-article already had an Injection-Date header
+            field, it MUST NOT be modified or replaced.  If the
+            proto-article had both a Message-ID header field and a Date
+            header field, an Injection-Date header field MUST NOT be
+            added, since the proto-article may have been multiply injected
+            by a posting agent that predates this standard.  Otherwise,
+            the injecting agent MUST add an Injection-Date header field
+            containing the current date and time.</t>

ALTERNATIVE C:

-            <t>The injecting agent MUST then add an Injection-Date header
-            field containing the current date and time.</t>

I believe the other diffs are either uncontroversial (they are the terminology change from "reinjection" to "multiple injection") or are obvious how to change once we get this one settled.

I think I could easily infer some people's opinion from the postings already made, but let's make the call explicit.

So in order to see if we have a strongly held position in the group, please reply to this message with ONE of the following statements:

* I prefer Alternative A
* I prefer Alternative B
* I prefer Alternative C
* I have another opinion, which is.....


If you want to say anything EXCEPT state your preference, please change the subject line, and DO NOT reply to other people's statement of their opinion.

I'll give this one week (until Monday, August 11, 2008, 12 noon UTC), and then tally responses.


                       Harald

Opinion poll: #1416 When to add Injection-Date Harald Alvestrand
Re: Opinion poll: #1416 When to add Injection-Date Forrest J. Cavalier III
Re: Opinion poll: #1416 When to add Injection-Date Russ Allbery
Re: Opinion poll: #1416 When to add Injection-Date stanley
Re: Opinion poll: #1416 When to add Injection-Date Thorfinn
CORRECTION Re: Opinion poll: #1416 When to add In… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Re: Opinion poll: #1416 When to add Injection-Date Dan Schlitt
Re: Opinion poll: #1416 When to add Injection-Date Charles Lindsey
Re: Opinion poll: #1416 When to add Injection-Date Frank Ellermann
#1416 When to add Injection-Date Richard Clayton
Re: #1416 When to add Injection-Date Charles Lindsey
Re: #1416 When to add Injection-Date Ralph Babel