Re: #1415 (was ISSUE #1414: Call for consensus)

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <465596E2.9050502@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:

>[snip]
> >I just want to make it clear that sites have some discretion
> >in this matter.
>[snip]

>> It is easily stated. My suggested wording was
>> 
>> Except possibly when relaying to other hosts on the same site, every
>> injecting, relaying, or serving agent that accepts an article MUST
>> update the Path header field ....

>Not better, in my view.

>1. It seems to indicate that "hosts" can be "relays" without being agents.  Can 
>you explain?

s/hosts/agents/ if you like.

>2. How is this a statement of discretion? Your wording is a narrow exception to 
>a MUST.  That makes it more likely that they add them, doesn't it?

"Except possibly" indicates that the MUST can be overridden in the given
circumstance. As to whether that makes it more or less likely to add them,
I don't really care. It gives them the discretion of they care to use it.
Further advice would be for USEAGE, it anywhere.

>3. I like Harald's pendatry on this one.  A server farm could be a mixture of 
>NATing firewalls, load-balancing routers, front-end NNTP caches, multi-cast 
>relayers, backend servers attached to NFS, archive storage boxes.  All of these 
>are hosts.  I think that introducing "host" is not going to bring clarity.

And I don't really want all those to be visible in the Path if they are of
no real interest to outside sites. But USEAGE would be the place where
that might be discussed. USEPRO just needs to set the rules.

-- 
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