From: J. B. Moreno (planb@newsreaders.com)
Date: Wed Sep 06 2000 - 10:43:44 CDT
On 9/6/00 6:27 AM, Charles Lindsey at <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> Here are the issues on which I need some guidance. Please reply by next
> Thursday, Sept 14th, at the latest.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Signed headers
>
> A. Do we proceed on the basis of draft-lindsey-usefor-signed-00.txt?
-snip-
>
> [YES / NO]
[ABSTAIN]
> B. In the event the answer to A is YES, do we canonicalise dates as days since
> Jan 1st 1970 (in which case a time hh:mm:60 canonicalises the same as
> hh:mm+1:00) or do we canonicalise dates using date-time syntax (in which
> case hh:mm:60 and hh:mm+1:00 are regarded as different). The proposed
> wording of the two cases is at the end of this message.
>
> [DAYS since 1/1/1970]
> [date-time syntax]
[date-time syntax]
> 2. "ought"
>
> Do we proceed on the basis of using "ought" as the word to indicate best
> practice in "social" cases where interoperability would not be affected,
> but the utility of Usenet to its users would. If this is agreed, then I
> will propose wording to define the usage, and then go through the document
> indicating where "SHOULD" should be changed to "ought".
>
> NOTE: Last time we were divided on this issue, but since then the IETF
> high-ups have indicated that using SHOULD for these cases is wrong, and they
> won't let us define "OUGHT". So we have not much choice, really.
>
> [YES / NO]
[NO] (leave as SHOULD)
> 3. Mail-Copies-To
>
> Do we proceed to define the Mail-Copies-To header?
-snip-
> [YES / NO]
[YES]
-- J.B. Moreno