Re: #1416 Injection-Date: current wording proposal (corrected)

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <464E6A18.4000003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Russ Allbery wrote:
>>>>+            <t>It MUST reject any article that has already been
>>>
>>>               successfully sent to it, or alternatively where its date
>>>               falls outwith any cutoff interval as described in <xref
>>>               history>.
>> 
>> 
>> I now have:
>> 
>>    3.  It MUST reject any article that has already been successfully
>>        sent to it, which may include rejecting articles whose dates fall
>>        outside a cutoff interval as described in Section 3.3.
>> 

>This changes the meaning significantly.  Is that right?

Not really. The second half of the sentence only applies IF the agent
maintains a "cutoff interval" (in practice, they all do, but if they don't
then neither wording places any REQUIREMENT on them).

But I think Frank's suggested wording covers it well.

-- 
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