Re: #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <8EEDE826ECE11A6E25A5D7A0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>--On torsdag, juni 30, 2005 19:47:58 +0000 Charles Lindsey 
><chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>    path-identity   =  ( ALPHA / DIGIT )
>>>                      *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" )
>>
>>>   path-keyword    = "POSTED" / "MISMATCH"
>>
>>
>>>   path-address    =  IPv4address / no-fold-literal ; see [RFC2373]
>>
>> A good idea, but the term <path-identity> needs to include everything that
>> may occur in the list, except the two keywords, because it is used with
>> that meaning in many places.

>8 times in usefor, 10 times in usepro....

>If a path-address is really diagnostic information, this separation is in 
>fact useful, since you do NOT want those diagnostics where a real 
>path-identity is desired; I'd argue that the Xref header and the 
>Injection-info header should not need to contain a path-address.

Yes, but the path-address (IPv[46]address) is NOT "just diagnopstic
information"	. It is in fairly widespread current use, with the intent of
avoiding duplicate propagation to the site which inserted it.

OTOH, the keywords POSTED and MISMATCH, plus the double "!!" delimiter
_are_ for purely diagnostice purposes, and those are the things I want
excluded from <path-identity>.


>I think you've just strengthened the argument for separating the two....

I hope I have just strengthened the argument for keeping them together.

-- 
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