Re: Possible items for AUTH48

In <91D53A7F67F145D38CA721D3E9CA45AB@Iulius> =?Windows-1252?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?= <[email protected]> writes:

>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 ?

The existing USEAGE draft, which contains quite a bit of text discussed by
the group, and also results of a short period of discussion some years
back, is now obviously badly out of date. The plan we are currently
supposed to be working to is to get the various drafts out one at a time.
So USEFOR and USEPRO are now just about done. So, in theory, we could now
go ahead with USEAGE (which would not need any rechartering). But whether
that will actually happen is entirely another matter :-( .

One of the things I am thinking of over the next few weeks is to dig out
that USEAGE draft, and update it to at least be consistent with the
current USEFOR and USEPRO. Then we would be in a better psoition to decide
whether to take it any further or not.

-- 
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