Re: [1586] Multiple POSTED in Path: header

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

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

>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.)

You surprise me. I had always assumed that Xref was only meaningful for a
particular server and the clients that used it, and that if ever it
received an already-present Xref (from whatever source) it would simply
discard it and substitute its own. But if it is as you say, then I suppose
that MUST has to remain (otherwise, SHOULD would have sufficed).

>>> 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.

Sure. If we agree on the effects we want to achieve, then I am due for a
careful read through the whole document to see what final inconsistencies
might be lurking there,

-- 
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