From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se)
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 04:46:09 CDT
"Charles Lindsey" <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
> My inclination is to leave most of these unchanged unless I hear support
> from the List. So please let me hear your comments, even if it is only a
> me2 to someopne else's opinion.
I can agree with Andrew on several points that the current use of SHOULD
or MUST is disputable. Then again, I don't feel completely uncomfortable
with the current wording either. I guess that means "leave as it is",
save the cases that you've changed already and this one:
> >5.6.2 "The path-identity added MUST be unique to that agent"
> >when combined with
> >6.16 "An agent MUST use the same serving-name in Xref-headers as the path-
> > identity it uses in Path-headers."
>
> >[Xref is in the overview, and putting an FQDN in as the serving-name
> >can double the average size of the header. It's not unusual for sites
> >to choose a short, and quite likely non-unique, Path stamp for a spool
> >server for exactly this reason (I've seen "0" used), thus conflicting
> >with the uniqueness requirement]
>
> You want SHOULD here? Or even weaker? I could be persuaded if others agree,
> though I don't entirely buy the size argument.
Maybe there is some good argument for having the same name in Path and
in Xref, but it is not obvious to me what it would be. In such case,
Andrew has a point, and the requirement should be removed completely.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se