From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 23 2001 - 12:17:37 CDT
In <20010416124546.28231.qmail@kairos.algonet.se> sommar@algonet.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>The closest to an answer I get is is section 4.2.2:
> When a header is defined, in this (or any future) standard, as having
> one (or possibly more) of these properties, it is subject to special
> treatment, as indicated below.
>This implies that this locally-defined header is not a Local Header,
>unless they produce an RFC which defines it as such.
Or define it for some cooperating subnet. There is a general allowance in
1.1 for cooperating subnets to vary the protocols (preferably so that
people outside do not notice, or course).
>But I admit that this is not completely conclusive.
>> I wasn't talking about Site C as a relay. I was talking about the part
>> where this draft says that local headers MUST be removed. Not "MAY" be
>> removed.
>Indeed here is a inconsistency between 4.2.2.2 and 8.4. 4.2.2.2 imposes
^^^^^^^
ITYM 4.2.2.3
>an obligation on serving agents on which the section "Duties of a Serving
>Agent" is silent.
Yes. I now have, in 8.4:
7. It SHOULD remove any local headers (4.2.2.3) from and generate a
fresh Xref header (6.16) for each article.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk 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