From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar-usefor@algonet.se)
Date: Tue Aug 29 2000 - 16:56:32 CDT
Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk) writes:
> 1. Injection-info
>
> We discussed this many months back. I intend to write a draft.
Is the header to specify complaints addresses? Or was more included?
Provided that it's technically straightforward stuff, I in favour.
> 2. Signed headers
>
> I think we need a straw poll to decide whether to follow the proposal I
> made (in which case there are some matters to resolve, like the
> canonicalisation of dates), or whether to follow some other plan (there
> seemed agreement that a facility of some sort is needed). After that is
> done, there are cancel-locks and wording in several places to build upon
> signed headers.
I have no objections to Charles's draft, simply of the reason that this
is an area I'm not very knowledgable in. But I get an unnerving feeling
that it needs more cooking. And it's certainly not documenting existing
practice.
> 3. "ought"
>
> The IETF high-ups told us not to use SHOULD or OUGHT. Do we agree to go
> with "ought"? If so, the change needs to be propagated.
This has of course to be settled. I don't even which opinion I held
last time around. I vaguely seem to recall "should as a matter of
principle". I think I'm ready to go with anything.
> 4. A.O.B.
>
> I think there are some other outstanding items from the last straw poll,
> but I would have to check back.
This was so long time ago, that I even can't recall what A.O.B. stands
for.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se