Re: [1586] Multiple POSTED in Path: header

"Charles Lindsey" <[email protected]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes:

>> Since multiple injection is the only means by which multiple POSTED
>> <diag-keywords> can arise with their intended meaning and purpose, it
>> seems pointless to relax the requirement too far in one area and not in
>> the other.

> Agreed. I think that MUST is a bit too strong as regards the Path
> header.  Indeed, it violates 2119 insofar as the protocol does not
> actually break if is it not done - same for Xref for that matter, so it
> is more a matter of what constitutes Good Practice.

If you include Xref in an NNTP POST to an INN server, the article will be
rejected.  That's why I made it a MUST; the protocol does actually break
in practice if you don't strip Xref.  (Whether it *should* is a separate
question, of course, but there's a huge installed base that behaves that
way.)

I agree that current servers do not reject posts that contain a POSTED
<diag-keyword>.

>> I think our options here are:
>
>> 1. Treat the Path header as special and permit (or even encourage)
>>    retaining it while not permitting retention of the other trace headers,
>>    on the grounds that it has an intrinsic ordering and therefore isn't as
>>    prone to confusion as having multiple trace headers that aren't
>>    ordered.

> Yes, I think I like that.

If we want to move forward with this, I think I could use some help
analyzing what needs to change in the document to make it consistent again
with this new approach.

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