From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 13:54:40 CDT
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <20020509094609.13500.qmail@wilhelmina.algonet.se> sommar@algonet.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>
> >> 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.
>
> I think I am persuaded on this one. But I shall make it clear that the
> server-name must uniquely identify the server in some manner so that user
> agents will not be misled (so as to cover Henry's point).
Certainly existing practice here doesn't always have the same name in
Path and Xref in all cases, depending on the software the top of the Path
is likely to be the server to which the user is connected if the article
is local, and the name of the next server down the chain if a referenced
fetch is used. And the Xref MAY be the name of the machine which actually
assigned the article numbers.
As long as both are valid and relevant, we either have to ignore a
mismatch or provide rules which would clearly state what they must be
(and which would break existing software).
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me