From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel@acm.org)
Date: Thu Sep 07 2000 - 04:59:55 CDT
In <200009061027.LAA16279@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, on 09/06/2000
at 11:27 AM, Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> said:
>1. Signed headers
>A. Do we proceed on the basis of draft-lindsey-usefor-signed-00.txt?
> This means discussing it further to refine the details, and then
>submitting
> it as an RFC for either an experimental protocol or a proposed
>standard.
> (The question of whether it is referenced in our main draft or is
>deferred
> to some future extension of that draft is a separate issue, to be
>decided
> later.)
> The alternative to proceeding with the present draft is to invite
> completely separate proposals (I think there is agreement that
>_some_
> mechanism of this sort is needed).
> [YES / NO]
Yes
>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
>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]
Yes
>3. Mail-Copies-To
> Do we proceed to define the Mail-Copies-To header?
> The alternative would be to do nothing about this, or to include
>some
> alternative mechanism. Mail-Copies-To would, of course, have to
>be defined
> pretty much in conformance with its present informal usage.
> NOTE: Last time we voted 7:7 on this issue, so I am asking the
>question
> again in the hope of getting a clear result.
> [YES / NO]
Qualified Yes: I don't like "but a warning is not necessary before
allowing the user to do so."
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
-----------------------------------------------------------