From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 15 2000 - 06:40:14 CDT
1. Signed headers
A. Do we proceed on the basis of draft-lindsey-usefor-signed-00.txt?
YES
--- Clive D.W. Feather Russ Allbery but as an experimental RFC I think, and preferrably not holding back the main draft. Erland Sommarskog David Barr but only after our base proposed standards doc is submitted. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Maurizio Codogno Charles LindseyNO -- Brad Templeton Claus Faerber Wait until we have finished the basic format specification. Ralph Babel
I interpret this as meaning we continue to disucss it, with a view towards a separate experimental or proposed standard RFC, but that work on the main draft should always take priority (however, I think the two can run in parallel to some extent, subject to that priority constraint).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. How to canonicalize dates
[date-time syntax] ------------------ Clive D.W. Feather but only a weak preference. Russ Allbery Paul Overell J. B. Moreno David Barr Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Claus Faerber
[seconds since 1970] -------------------- Maurizio Codogno Charles Lindsey
[NONE OF THE ABOVE] ------------------- Ralph Babel Sign as is. Do not canonicalize. Anyone who rewrites headers should get what they deserve.
Well that seems clear enough. The date-times have it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. "ought"
YES --- Clive D.W. Feather Russ Allbery Erland Sommarskog David Barr Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Maurizio Codogno But please, leave OUGHT uppercase in the draft, and just put it in lowercase at time of Last Call. Even if the IETF Powers are so wicked that they do not want to add a new directive, I don' see why we cannot use it while working. Charles Lindsey
NO -- Brad Templeton Paul Overell I fail to see the distinction between "utility of Usenet" and "interoperability". Are we absolutely sure that SHOULD cannot be used? J. B. Moreno (leave as SHOULD) Claus Faerber we don't have a choice. Besides, using newly defined phrases will only confuse the reader. Further, we should remove the "social" cases from a format specification. The belong to separate documents, probably on a per-hierachy (group) basis. Ralph Babel
I think that means we proceed on an "ought" basis. We might well have preferred SHOULD, but the IETF people were quite clear that we couldn't. However, I take those remarks as indicating that I should stick with SHOULD wherever we can possibily claim that interoperability is involved. Also, I like Maurizio's suggestion of continuing with "OUGHT", if only temporarily. I think what I will do is to use "Ought" and see where we get. It is a simple matter to edit it back to "ought" if we are over-ruled again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Mail-Copies-To
YES --- Per Abrahamsen Russ Allbery Paul Overell J. B. Moreno David Barr Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz I don't like "but a warning is not necessary before allowing the user to do so." Maurizio Codogno Charles Lindsey
NO -- Erland Sommarskog Alternative: nothing at all. I fail to see the use of this header. Brad Templeton or YES if the standard says that mailing copies is a SHOULD NOT if the header is absent. Claus Faerber I'd rather call it 'Followup-CC-To', which expresses much better what it is meant to do. Further, a diffrent name will avoid problems caused by incosistent use of this informally defined header. Ralph Babel Separate RFC. Should fix related problems as well (e.g. "Followup-To: poster" not allowing a list of suggested newsgroups in case someone wants to respond publically nonetheless; "mail preferred, but never both mail and news"; mailing-list reponses etc.: from, reply-to, to, cc).
I think that means we proceed on the basis of Mail-Copies-To, but pay careful attention to what the default means, and to those warnings. I think this will be my next job.
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