Re: Possible items for AUTH48

Hi Charles,

> In section 3.5 (Duties of an injecting agent), Step 2, it states:
>
>   "It MUST reject any proto-article ... that has a Path header field
>   containing the "POSTED" <diag-keyword>;..."
>
> That is inconsistent with the recently altered section 3.4.1
> (Proto-articles) which now states only that
>
>   "the Path header field SHOULD NOT contain a "POSTED" <diag-keyword>;"

Why not say in 3.5 that it MAY reject such an article (instead of MUST)?
It would be coherent with

    "It MAY reject any proto-article that contains trace header fields"


> In section 5.4 (The Supersedes Header Field), it is not immediately clear
> whether an Approved header is needed, as with Group control messages.
> Diligent examination reveals that it is NOT required (and that is
> correct). But it might be kinder to add:
>
>   NOTE: It is not required (except in moderated groups) for a Supersedes
>   header field to be accompanied by an Approved header field.

I reckon it would be useful to add your suggested note.


> I have carefully noted all the places where [RFC2822] is mentioned, and it
> appears that they would all be equally applicable to RFC5822, which is on
> track to become a Draft Standard.

Isn't it RFC 5322?
RFC 5822 seems to be draft-hoffman-dac-vbr-04 and is not the same thing.


> As regards the USEFOR draft, which will also be up for AUTH 48 at the same
> time

When is AUTH 48?
Is there still some work on USEAGE?  Why isn't it in the same state as USEFOR
and USEPRO?  Was it abandoned ?

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Quand je raconterai mon odyssée, personne ne me croira ! » (Astérix)