Re: #1047 Path field delimiters and syntax - status

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <9dTjm4yHw-B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> kaih@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kai Henningsen) writes:

>chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Charles Lindsey)  wrote on 05.09.05 in <IMCwqG.3Bv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>>    <Path-identity>s can take the following forms (in decreasing order of
>>    preference):
>>
>>    1. A fully qualified domain name (FQDN) associated with an "A" or
>>       "AAAA" record identifying that news-server, or with an "MX" record
>>       through which its administrators can be contacted; alternatively
>>       an equivalent "CNAME".

>I think you're missing here a FQDN not associated with any of these,  
>possibly not even existing according to DNS, but within "your" sphere of  
>administration - that is, a FQDN which "you" could make exist or associate  
>with one of the above, but haven't.

I don't think I would really like that usage, but it could be written into
Case 1 if people want it so. We certainly need domain names that are not A
or AAAA records because some servers might not always be on line, and
might be using a leased IP. For example, my own server would use
clerew.man.ac.uk, which is an MX record (I have no fixed IP address). But
I would much prefer to stick with domain-names that resolve to at least
something in the DNS.

>Because I'd still see that preferrable to your case 2, and it's certainly  
>a case where whoever decides on the name has control over the uniqueness  
>of the name just as for 1.

>You currently subsume this under 3, where I don't think it belongs.

>>    3. Some other (arbitrary) name believed to be unique and registered
>>       at least with all other news-servers sending articles directly to
>>       the given one. This option SHOULD NOT be used unless the earlier
>>       options are unavailable (e.g. because the server in question is
>>       not connected to the Internet), or unless it is of longstanding
>>       usage and cessation would be unduly disruptive, or unless one
>>       of the earlier options is provided as well.

One of my worries is that <bareword>s (as we seem to be calling case 3)
will also need a syntax. Clearly it will not allow a ':' (that is where
this whole argument started), but would it allow a domain-name, or even an
IPv4Address (which would defeat the object of the proposed restriction)?

Maybe a <bareword> should be defined as needing to contain at least one
ALPHA.

-- 
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