Issue [1586] (was USEPRO document on IESG processing queue)

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <49B7A7CE.1000602@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Lisa has scheduled the USEPRO document for IESG discussion on April 2.
>Let's hope this is the end of this work.

But this is NOT yet the end of this work, since we still have not resolved
Issue 1586.

The last contribution on this was from Russ on Feb 1st
<http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg04517.html>, the relevant
part of which is:

>I think our options here are:
>
>1. Treat the Path header as special and permit (or even encourage)
>   retaining it while not permitting retention of the other trace headers,
>   on the grounds that it has an intrinsic ordering and therefore isn't as
>   prone to confusion as having multiple trace headers that aren't
>   ordered.
>
>2. Leave the existing wording, which requires multiple injection to remove
>   or rename the Path header but allows readers to add spurious POSTED
>   <diag-keyword>s by violating a SHOULD.  I'm not entirely comfortable
>   with it, but I can't think of any specific protocol harm it could
>   cause.
>
>3. Restore the MUST in the proto-article section to match the MUST in
>   3.4.2 and make the document consistent but possibly too strict.
>
>4. Relax the MUST generally in 3.4.2, but then we will run into issues
>   with Injection-Info, which the posting agent is not permitted to supply
>   and which doesn't have an intrinsic ordering the way that the Path
>   header does.
>
>The more I think about it, the more option 1 seems like a workable idea,
>but I think that's reversing some decisions that we made some time back.
>That makes me nervous at this stage of the process.

I replied to that agreeing that option 1 was the best way to proceed, so
that leaves Russ and myself in agreement.

The only other view expressed was yourself a couple of days before that
expressing some doubt concerning the possible advantage "script kiddies"
might take if we permitted multiple "POSTED"s to remain in Paths. I am of
the view that there are pros and cons to that approach, but am of the
opinion that on balance it is better to allow them.

I would be willing to provide detailed wording suggestions, but would
prefer that we reach agreement in principle first that option 1 is the way
we want to go.

BTW, it seemed that Russ had comitted changes prior to publishing a
further draft, but I have seen no sign of such a draft - an in particular
no notice of it has appeared here.

-- 
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