Issues outstanding

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We are coming to the point where there is little more that can be done on
the documents we are supposed to be producing without deciding how various
outstanding issues are to be resolved.

1. Complaints-To

I published a list of 4 options (and invited other options) in
http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg00151.html. Only three
people have expressed any preference amongst them. I think #4 is dead, and
#2 is the one most people could live with (but on such a small sample,
that is hardly meaningful).

#2 was to do it in Injection-Info rather than in a Complaints-To header,
and to provide only a mail-complaints-to parameter (which would leave open
the option to provide a separate url-complaints parameter as a future
extension).


2. Path header delimiters

See http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg00123.html.

I offered 4 schemes A, B, C and D with different ways of indicating:
    #1 the injecting site
    #2 identity of previous site verified
    #3 identity of previous site not verified
    #4 identity of previous site not checked

A. (draft-13) Uses '%' for #1, '/' for #2, '?' for #3 amd '!' for #4

B. (Henry)    Uses '@' for #1, ',' for #2, ' ' for #3 amd '!' for #4

C. (Diablo)   !foo.example.POSTED! for #1
              !bar.example.MISMATCH! for #3
              !baz.example! for #2 and #4 which are not distinguished

D. (CHL)      !foo.example!POSTED! for #1
              !baz.example!M! (or !baz.example!!) for #2
              !bar.example!MISMATCH! for #3
              !baz.example! for #4

But that's just a summary. Please follow the URL for all the pros and
cons.


3. Mail-Copies-To and Posted-And Mailed

Available options appear to be:

1.  Include them as in draft-13
2a. Defer them to a future document (standards-track)
2b. Defer them to a future document (experimental)
3.  Drop them entirely

Earlier discussions were inconclusive. I gather our Chair prefers #2 (a or
b), but he has made no definitive pronouncement.


4.  Terminology for followups.

1. A followup is a response, and MUST have a References header. A part of
   a multi-part FAQ (or anything similar) is not a followup, but it MAY
   nevertheless have a References header.

2. A followup is a response, or a part of a multi-part FAQ (or anything
   similar). A followup MUST have a References header, and anything else
   MUST NOT have one.

It has been established that there is no technical difference between
these formulations. It is just a matter of wording, so a simple majority
for one of the other should settle the matter.

There are alternative definitions in USEPRO, but no corresponding wordings
for the References header in USEFOR yet, so maybe we should wait until
there are.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5