Re: Issue [1586] (was USEPRO document on IESG processing queue)

Hi Charles,

USEFOR is done as a WG.  I checked this with the chairs, and the
energy to try to make any further improvements or clarifications is
just not there.  The issues are sufficiently dealt with.  The IESG
reviewed the document and decided it was a sufficient improvement on
the previous RFC to be worth approving.  In many ways this is a job
well done despite the slowness of closing bunch of issues.

Thank-you for your efforts in helping us get to this finishing point.
Lisa

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Charles Lindsey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In <[email protected]> Harald Alvestrand <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>Lisa has scheduled the USEPRO document for IESG discussion on April 2.
>>Let's hope this is the end of this work.
>
> But this is NOT yet the end of this work, since we still have not resolved
> Issue 1586.
>
> The last contribution on this was from Russ on Feb 1st
> <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg04517.html>, the relevant
> part of which is:
>
>>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.
>>
>>2. Leave the existing wording, which requires multiple injection to remove
>>   or rename the Path header but allows readers to add spurious POSTED
>>   <diag-keyword>s by violating a SHOULD.  I'm not entirely comfortable
>>   with it, but I can't think of any specific protocol harm it could
>>   cause.
>>
>>3. Restore the MUST in the proto-article section to match the MUST in
>>   3.4.2 and make the document consistent but possibly too strict.
>>
>>4. Relax the MUST generally in 3.4.2, but then we will run into issues
>>   with Injection-Info, which the posting agent is not permitted to supply
>>   and which doesn't have an intrinsic ordering the way that the Path
>>   header does.
>>
>>The more I think about it, the more option 1 seems like a workable idea,
>>but I think that's reversing some decisions that we made some time back.
>>That makes me nervous at this stage of the process.
>
> I replied to that agreeing that option 1 was the best way to proceed, so
> that leaves Russ and myself in agreement.
>
> The only other view expressed was yourself a couple of days before that
> expressing some doubt concerning the possible advantage "script kiddies"
> might take if we permitted multiple "POSTED"s to remain in Paths. I am of
> the view that there are pros and cons to that approach, but am of the
> opinion that on balance it is better to allow them.
>
> I would be willing to provide detailed wording suggestions, but would
> prefer that we reach agreement in principle first that option 1 is the way
> we want to go.
>
> BTW, it seemed that Russ had comitted changes prior to publishing a
> further draft, but I have seen no sign of such a draft - an in particular
> no notice of it has appeared here.
>
> --
> 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
>
>