From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 20 1999 - 03:50:12 CDT
In <FHzvFE.M2K@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
I first posted this to the list on Sept 13th, but there has been no response.
My system did warn me recently that one message had failed to get posted
to the list, so maybe it was this one, especially in view of Jonathan
Grobe's last message.
>In <Pine.OSF.4.02.9909100951400.17145-100000@worf.netins.net> Jonathan Grobe <grobe@worf.netins.net> writes:
>>The next IETF meeting will be in Washington, DC on November 7-12.
>>The due date for drafts is October 25, six weeks away. It would be
>>nice if this group had a solid draft by that date and a substantial
>>meeting at the IETF. But judging from the lack of progress in the
>>last month I doubt it (August had a low of 56 messages on this list
>>while September is all spam so far).
>I am not sure there is much point in a discussion at an IETF meeting,
>hnless a significant humber of us is going to be there to explain our
>position. We certainly shan't be through our present pass by then, but I
>suppose I could produce a "snapshot of work in progress" sort of draft if
>that was though to be a good political move.
>But I would prefer to wait until our present pass is completed before
>producing a full draft, because that would provide the best opportunity
>for tidying up all sortf of irksome things like the table of contents and
>the cross-references (all of which should be dome mechanically AFAP).
>As for how to progress, the latest chaper has attracted little comment,
>and some people said it was too long to digest at one go.
>Actually, the quiet period has suited me, because I have just upgraded my
>hardware, and my operating system (new sendmail.cf to hack and other such
>pleasures :-( ) so I havce been glad of the rest. But we must get back to
>work now.
>So how about dividing it up? Suppose we now take questions on sections 6.1
>thru 6.11. That is
>Followup-To
>Sender
>Expires
>Reply-To
>References
>Control
>Distribution
>Keywords
>Summary
>Approved
>Lines
>Issues within those sections:
>References. There was a little discussion, and I think we should now
>reduce the number kept to first plus last 20, and to remove the
>suggestion that implementations need to look at the body. There remains
>the question of whether trimming the Referemces (when you do a followup)
>should be a SHOULD or a MAY. Currently it says SHOULD, but I would be
>happier with MAY.
>Control. I had tightened up the syntax of verbs. Any problem there?
>More importantly, do you want me to say that "Subject: cmsg blah" is for
>information only and MUST NOT be used to instigate control action on its
>own.
>Distribution. Are you happy with the allowed characters in
>distribution-name? And should we allow CFWS?
>Approved. There is mention of strengthening this. Should this wait until
>we have dealt with authentication matters?
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 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