Re: Fwd: ISSUE: Checkgroups control messages

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:32:33 +0100, Julien ÉLIE <julien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
wrote:

> Hi Charles,
>
> Your address at clw.cs.man.ac.uk does not work for me:
>     Remote host said: 550 relay not permitted

That address has not worked for many years past.
> > > * 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.
>
> I think USEPRO should not do so something which leads sub-hierarchies
> not to be self-managed:  they should not lay on the checkgroups of the
> main hierarchy in case the root of the sub-hierarchy is a valid newsgroup
> (which is not a root for the super-hierarchy).

Neither the fr.autres.* subhierarchy nor the group fr.autres can exist at  
all without the agreement of the administrators of fr.*, so I see no  
problem in agreeing with the fr.* administrator to handle the rare cases  
in which fr.autres needs some amendment. Too much copmplication in the  
chackgroups rules. So I do not want to change it (if any other USEPRO  
member wants it changed, then he will have to speak up).
> > 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.
>
> I understand that the <chkscope> parameter was invented for de.alt.*
> but there is also cn.bbs.* in the same case.  (fido.* groups are
> almost defunct.)

Yes, I was aware of the similar cn.bbs.* case.

> And what strikes me most is that USEPRO sticks to the behaviour of
> de.alt.* (where de.alt is not a newsgroup) and do not try to be
> more general.
>
>
> > >   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 do not think it wise to limit this number to 32768 because one
> could not use DNS serial numbers (which are practical).
> 2^31=2147483648 would be better, at least.
> It could be said that implementations should except <chksernr> arguments
> to be a 32-bit integer.  And that the (unsigned) integer should be less
> than 2^32.

Yes, I agree that any number expressed in 32 bit would be better. Can Russ  
quietly slip it in?

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   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