Re: ISSUE 1583 status (was: Re: January: open issues on USEPRO)

In <[email protected]> Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes:

>There are four issues in this ticket.

But it seems that the third is the only one where we might take any
further action.


>The third issue is about what to do when a serial number is specified for
>a hierarchy and then a subsequent control message arrives without a serial
>number.  The current document is silent on what to do in this situation.
>I think it should state what should be done.  My sense of the previous
>discussion was that most people felt that such a checkgroups should be
>ignored, meaning that once an authorized control message sender starts
>issuing checkgroups with serial numbers, subsequent checkgroups for that
>hierarchy must always use serial numbers, which must always be larger than
>the previous serial number.  I'm a little worried about this provision,
>since after long periods of time and a change of hierarchy administration
>it can be potentially difficult to uncover the previous serial number.
>But I don't see a good alternative that preserves the serial number
>semantics.

I am slightly worried about being too specific here, for the reason you
mention. Perhaps some wording to the effect that newsadmins should think
carefully before accepting such a checkgroups (and in any case, blind
automatic acceptance of checkgroups has never been a recommended
practice). I wouldn't want to say anything stronger than that, and would
be happy to leave it as it stands.

So by all means suggest a wording if you like, or else let it be.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            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