#1416: USEPRO 3.9: Reinjection and Injection-Date (was: Re: Injection-Date and reinjection)

[Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Forrest J Cavalier <mibsoft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Since the normal case for disjoint Netnews networks is that they'll
>> have disjoint sets of articles as well.  (Also, one doesn't need to
>> limit it to one in each network necessarily.  I was trying to avoid
>> making that limitation in my language.)

> Simple changes.  Make it conditional... "To cause an article to appear
> on disjoint networks a posting agent SHOULD..."

> And "s/one/at least one/"

Yeah, that fixes my concerns there.

>> Charles has a valid point that it's really beyond the ability of a
>> posting agent to determine whether two Netnews networks are truly
>> disjoint.

> Yes, this point bothered me as I was going to bed.  Relays ought to
> check Path and would rewording indicate that?  Would this be adequate.

What sort of checking of Path do you have in mind?  I can't figure out
exactly what that would entail.

>> We need to say *what* other header fields it will rename.  I think we
>> also have to allow for drop as well as rename; for example, if I'm
>> posting to a disconnected INN server and then gatewaying those articles
>> to Usenet, my local trace information is entirely irrelevant and
>> there's no reason to retain it.

> Isn't that permitted by the last SHOULD?  Why is the trace information
> entirely irrelevant?  It isn't any more irrelevant than opaque trace
> information from all the other servers.

It often is.  The hostname is localhost, the IP address is 127.0.0.1, etc.
It's allowed by SHOULD, but I don't think we need a SHOULD-level decision
to decide to throw away useless tracking information.  Although I guess I
don't feel strongly about it.

>> If this is the complete section, we're not saying that the gatewaying
>> rules apply anywhere, which I think we still need to do since there may
>> be bidirectional gatewaying at work (among other things).

> Unnecessary complexity.  Why make people at private leaf nodes consider
> the requirements of bidirectional gatewaying, discarding half of those
> requirements?

Er, I don't understand.  I'm not proposing that one-directional gateways
be subject to the constraints of bidirectional gateways, of course.  I'm
saying that this *is* a gateway and therefore needs to follow the rules of
gateways, including such things as not gatewaying a message that it had
already gatewayed, marking messages it has gatewayed, etc.  This is needed
particularly in the case of bidirectional gatewaying, which you may not
know is happening.  All that is spelled out in the gateway section, and I
don't want to copy it all into this section again.

All those cautions and caveats are applicable here, so I'd like to just
cite that section and be done with it.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>