Re: Fwd: ISSUE: Checkgroups control messages

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <87prnd87k9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>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

>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).

That is correct. I think the term "sub-hiererchy" is defined as a set of
groups with a common prefix (ending in '.'), and so does not include its
own root. So it would be up to the administrator of fr.* to include
"fr.autres" in HIS checkgroups.

The chkscope parameter was invented for the benefit of the de.alt.*
hierachy (which is used as an example in our draft). I don't think the
individual group de.alt actually exists, but the wording surrounding that
example seems to confirm my interpretation.

>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.)

No, there is nothing impossible about a group whose name is the name of a
sub-hierarchy, though there was a time when admins used to insist that your
top-level subgroup should be known as fr.autres.misc. But that rule has
been broken many times since those days.

>* 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 wouldn't want to specify its format any further, but we might insist
that the integer should be less that 32768, or somesuch.

>* 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?

NO.

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

Yes.

>I reckon that a means should be provided to allow a hierarchy
>administrator to change his counter....

-1

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

+1

-- 
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