From: Brian Palmer (bpalmer@stanford.edu)
Date: Fri Oct 12 2001 - 06:36:34 CDT
chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
> The wording in the present draft is as follows:
>
> A serving agent that elects to honour a cancel message SHOULD delete
> the target article completely and immediately (or at the minimum make
> the article unavailable for relaying or serving) and also SHOULD
> reject any copies of this article that appear subsequently. See also
> sections 8.3 and 8.4.
I dislike the first wording a bit, because I think the first sentence
is confusing, and too strong a statement (what if an administrator
wants to review all cancelled messages before deciding whether to
delete them? No reason he shouldn't). But, more importantly, I don't
think a SHOULD imperative, followed by a weakening, makes sense; it
seems ambiguous whether it SHOULD "at the minimum make the article..."
or, because MUST is at the minimum, it SHOULD delete, and MUST "make
the article unavailable...".
I think Seth's suggestion that this is not itself a problem with
cancel locks makes sense. Making a note to that effect doesn't seem
bad:
A serving agent that elects to honour a cancel message SHOULD
make the target article unavailable for relaying or serving
(perhaps by deleting the article). Note that it is possible
for a cancel message to arrive before the target article;
were the cancel message honoured, the target article SHOULD be
rejected. See also sections 8.3 and 8.4
And perhaps an explicit note before 7.1 changing
Moreover, acceptance of such messages MAY be subject to local
administrative restrictions, and MAY be denied or referred to
an administrator for approval (either as a class or on a
case-by-case basis).
to
Acceptance of such messages MAY be subject to local
administrative restrictions. Acceptance MAY be delayed (for
instance, a serving agent might wait until targeted articles
are received before choosing to accept or deny a control
message), and MAY be denied or referred to an administrator
for approval (either as a class or on a case-by-case basis).
And yes, I thought the alternative text went too far.
-brian