Fwd: ISSUE: Checkgroups control messages

[Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Forwarding by request, since Julien's mail isn't making it through
moderation of the list.


From: Julien ÉLIE <julien.elie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Russ Allbery" <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Tr: ISSUE: Checkgroups control messages
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:02:11 +0200

Hi,

I see a few issues about checkgroups (section 5.2.3):


* If I have a hierarchy like this one:

    fr.bienvenue
    fr.test

and if another administrator is in charge of the sub-hierarchy
fr.autres, with for instance:

    fr.autres
    fr.autres.fiction
    fr.autres.histoires

how can he specify in the Control: header that his checkgroups
contains fr.autres?

    Control: checkgroups fr.autres #1

means fr.autres.* and does not create fr.autres (which I do not
want in my own hierarchy).

It looks that USEPRO implicitely considers that the top-level
of a hierarchy (and also a sub-hierarchy) cannot be a valid
newsgroup. (Anyway, I cannot make "fr" be a newsgroup at all
with that system.)


* I read:

    The <chksernr> argument may be any positive integer.

Could it be better specified what should look like this integer?
Especially, why not suggest something like DNS serial numbers
#2008090701?  Why not limit the size of this integer (32 bits?)
Suppose that I put a 448-digit number, I am not sure news servers
will manage to save it and compare it with the next one.


* I read:

    If provided, news servers SHOULD remember the <chksernr>
    value of the previous checkgroups control message honored for
    a particular hierarchy or sub-hierarchy.

What happens if not provided for a given checkgroups whereas previous
ones for the same hierarchy had been provided?  Should it be honoured?

According to the wording, two separate counters must be used, right?
One for "fr" and another one for "fr.autres" (sub-)hierarchies.


I reckon that a means should be provided to allow a hierarchy
administrator to change his counter.  For instance if he does not want
to use it any longer (therefore, he wants to reset it to a null value)
or if he made a mistake and provided a too huge number (therefore, he
wants to reset it to #1 or a DNS serial number).




Note:  Adam H. Kerman also raised a few concerns about checkgroups here:
         http://groups.google.fr/group/news.admin.hierarchies/msg/f3c314b07f296bd3
         http://groups.google.fr/group/news.admin.hierarchies/msg/43cd4bcc8907f6db

but I am not talking about them here.

There is also "and should not be honored" where "SHOULD" should be used,
shouldn't it?

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« I think it's a new feature.  Don't tell anyone it was an accident. » (Larry Wall)