From: Frank Ellermann (Frank.Ellermann@t-online.de)
Date: Sun Jun 02 2002 - 22:32:20 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
[5.4.1 Re: new subject (was: old subject)]
> It is not usual for followup agents to strip (was: ...) from
> the Subject line AFAIAA, though I have no objection if some
> agent chooses to do it.
You could simply add another example line to document this...
Subject: Re: Godwin's law
...then it's obvious for anybody, that stripping (was: ...) is
at least not incorrect. Even minor details in RfC 1036 and
1036bis caused endless threads in some newsgroups, it's better
to avoid any ambiguity now. (Of course it's not "ambiguous"
and only an example, but these endless debates ignore simple
facts whenever possible. ;-)
[5.6.2 #3 "downstream"]
>| An arbitrary name believed to be unique and registered at
>| least with all sites immediately downstream from the given
>| site.
> No, "peering with" implies a symetrical relationship. It is
> definitely the downstream and not the upstream that is meant
> here. But I think the term "downstream" is sufficiently well
> understood to stand on its own.
Topologies can be very strange (that's the point of "above all,
prevent loops" in 8.8). Apparently nobody here has problems
to define "downstream", so I'm probably wrong.
Bye, Frank