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

[Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Forrest J Cavalier <mibsoft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>> Going to 2 sentences would help me, I think.
>> 
>>   It MUST reject any article that has already been successfully sent to it.
>>   If it implements the mechanism described in <xref history>, this means
>> that it
>>   will have to reject any article where its date falls outside a cutoff
>> interval,
>>   since it doesn't know whether it has been successfully sent to it or not.
>> 
>> If shorter text is desired, drop the part after the comma.
>> 

> I really like that this expresses the idea that if you can't know if you
> accepted it or not, you must reject.

> I would wordsmith:

> 	successfully sent to it -> accepted.

> (There have been some propagation algorithms which trust articles from
> certain peers, but not others.)

> And I don't have a strong opinion, but should this part also change:
> 	will have to reject -> MUST reject.

I now have:

            <t>It MUST reject any article that has already been accepted.
            If it implements the mechanism described in <xref
            target="history" />, this means that it MUST reject any
            article whose date falls outside a cutoff interval since it
            won't know whether such articles had been accepted or not.</t>

since indeed I think that rejecting such articles is a MUST *if* the
server is using that algorithm.

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