From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 14:27:41 CDT
Pete Resnick (presnick@qualcomm.com):
> It is therefore necessary to document what everyone expects ...
Which is documented in RFC 2822 where the header is defined. I would
question the ability of any group to document what "everyone" expects,
however well intended that might be. It's clear that some agents expect
"Sv: " since that is what they insert. (Russ has said that he's seen
nothing other than Re:, but I've seen Sv:.) It is also clear that some
agents expect nothing and can deal with that quite handily. That's three
different, orthoganal things that "everyone expects". Should we try for
four?
>4. Clear: The Informational usage document is not going to be able to
>use the 2119 keywords exactly as 2119 meant them.
I want to be clear here that you are referring to USAGE and not USEFOR by
this "Informational" document. There has been mention that since USEFOR is
"Informational", it cannot use RFC2119 language. That is incorrect. USEFOR
may be Informational as an Internet standard, but it is the NEWS standard,
and it is what we will expect news software to comply with. There is no
reason not to use RFC2119 language therein.
>5. Clear: We will be able to use stronger imperative language in the
>usage document than in the protocol document. The protocol document
>is identifying things that will break (network interoperability wise)
>if they are not followed. The usage document is identifying things
>that will make users lives a pain if they are not followed.
That is exactly backwards. If some item actually breaks the system so that
news articles do not get transported, then it is clear that the strongest
imperatives are necessary to prevent it. If something just makes some
people unhappy, then no such imperative is required. USAGE is supposed to
be the suggestions and the "ought to's" for how to implement the protocol;
if you don't make the protocol THE protocol and deal with
interoperability there, then of what use is USAGE? I would certainly look
at any protocol document as being THE definition of the protocol, not the
"usage" which should be just explaining why and giving examples.
>6. Not so clear: If this stuff goes into the usage document, it could
>say "Senders SHOULD prepend 'Re :' at all times for followups". Some
>folks have indicated that they want to see such language, but I'm not
>sure if there is consensus to include any such language.
If you use the RFC2119 method of indicating imperatives, then you bring in
the RFC2119 meaning. If you want the standard english meaning, then use
the standard english word. I.e., if there is enough reason to EMPHASIZE
the SHOULD by SHOUTING, then it has the RFC2119 connotation. Otherwise,
use simple english.
And, for the record, _I_ care when people lie about what I've said, even
if that puts me in the "no one of any importance" category, and I thank
the Chair for making His opinion on this crystal clear.