#1416 (WAS: Plan to finish ...)

In <[email protected]> Russ Allbery <[email protected]> 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: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email protected]      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