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

Charles Lindsey 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:
>   
That's wrong.

The last contribution on this issue number is on February 4, from yourself:

> In <[email protected]> Harald Alvestrand <[email protected]> writes:
>
>   
>> >Charles Lindsey wrote:
>>     
>>> >>
>>> >>    NOTE: Whereas the presence of two "POSTED" <diag-keyword>s will often
>>> >>    indicate a malicious attempt to disguise the true origin of an article,
>>> >>    it could also arise following some ususual gatewaying or injecting
>>> >>    scenario (taking advantage of the "MAY contain" above), in which case
>>> >>    it could be useful for detecting unintended loops or mismanaged
>>> >>    gateways. The whole intent of these <path-diagnostic)s is to assist
>>> >>    humans in assessing unusual situations, and it would be unwise for
>>> >>    subsequent agents automatically to assume one possibility or the other.
>>> >>
>>>       
>
>   
>> >I disagree with this idea, and think we should keep the SHOULD NOT.
>>     
>
>   
>> >Not throwing away information can be accomplished by tricks like 
>> >Old-Path:. As the proposed note effectively says, saying that multiple 
>> >POSTs are generally acceptable is an invitation to the script kiddies to 
>> >play with it.
>>     
>
> If the script kiddies try it, they will get caught out because two POSTEDs
> will then be present and any suspicion of trollery will be confirmed.
>
> But in the case of some carefully crafted Gatewaying scheme, or, worse, in
> the case of some broken Gatewaying scheme that ought to be spotted,
> destroying the evidence will do harm. And I doubt people will want to
> bother with Old-Post hacks.
>
> There are plenty of Netkops around who will gleefully denounce the trolls,
> and plenty of experienced newsadmins who will notice indications of broken
> Gatewaying (especially if consistently repeated) and quietly warn those
> causing it.
Russ and I did not agree with your proposal. Given that only 3 people 
commented at that time, I saw absolutely no reason to hold up finishing 
the USEPRO document while waiting for more people to come on board with 
opinions.

rt.psg.com is down today, so I can't verify whether I actually closed 
the issue. But I see no need to reopen it.

                   Harald