headers
Stan Barber | 8 Dec 2003 20:00
Favicon
Gravatar

Announcement of a new List


The upgrade of the mailing list software from Mailman 2.0 to 2.1 was fraught
with problems and one of them was this bogus announcement. Please accept my
apologies for any confusion it may have caused. Your mailman password was
reset, so you will need to keep the email for that reason.

Those of you who look at the on-line archives will find them a bit confused
as well. No messages have been lost, but I have to get in a manually adjust
where some of the messages got sorted. The complete archives is still
available and unaffected by this situation.

_______________________________________________
ietf-nntp mailing list
ietf-nntp <at> academ.com
https://www.academ.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nntp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Russ Allbery | 9 Dec 2003 08:43
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Re: ietf-nntp Niggles

Charles Lindsey <chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra <at> stanford.edu> writes:

>>>    If the requested header is not present in the article or if it is
>>>    present but empty, a line for that article is included in the output

>> We had a long conversation about this and I believe the above is correct.

Clive, I'm pretty sure my memory of this discussion is accurate, although
if someone wants to troll through the archives, that would be welcome
confirmation.  We did establish consensus on this, though; the draft just
doesn't fully represent that consensus.

> Hmmm! WHat does XHDR do?

Nothing sensibly uniform.  That came up in our previous discussion.

> In RFC 2980 I find:

>    Some implementations will return "(none)" followed by a period on a
>    line by itself if no headers match in any of the articles searched.

This is some other odd problem unrelated to this one, and is obviously
broken.

> And what Stan Barber's reference implementation does is

> XHDR References 2735-
> 221 References fields follow
> 2735 <200310282052.h9SKqRn00642 <at> clerew.man.ac.uk>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 9 Dec 2003 20:08
Picon
Picon

Re: Re: ietf-nntp Niggles

In <20031111111642.GG39235 <at> finch-staff-1.thus.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive <at> demon.net> writes:

This message from Clive seems to have been sitting in limbo for around
a month (I first saw my own CC of it on Nov 11th or thereabouts, and
replied to Clive directly).

Anyway, it mostly seems OK. Just a few comments.

>>    If the requested header is not present in the article or if it is
>>    present but empty, a line for that article is included in the output
>> 
>> That is not my understanding of the case when the requested header is absent
>> from the article, and it is not consistent with what is said on the previous
>> page:
>> 
>>    If the information is available, it is returned as a multi-line
>>    response following the 225 response code and contains one line for
>>    each article where the relevant header line or metadata item exists
>>    (note that unless the argument is a range including a dash, there
>>    will be at most one line but it will still be in multi-line format).
>> 
>> If my interpretation is correct, then the example in the following section
>> needs fixing also.

>I see that Russ isn't sure either.

>There's four situations to consider:
>(1) Header present and has content.
>(2) Header present but empty.
>(3) Header not present.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
ned+ietf-nntp | 12 Dec 2003 05:53

Re: Re: ietf-nntp Niggles

> In <01L2QD830SII00HOW2 <at> mauve.mrochek.com> ned+ietf-nntp <at> innosoft.com writes:

> >However, all this is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Why? Because the
> >whole point of including the phrase "IESG-approved" is to make IESG approval an
> >*additional* requirement for publication of an NNTP extension specification.
> >Just because this requirement does not normally exist for publication of an
> >experimental extensions doesn't mean a specification can't add it.

> >SMTP extensions are similarly constrained (I suspect this is where the idea
> >came from) and this set of constraints has worked very well in practice.

> OK, I see similar wording in RFC 2821. But I would still have thought that
> "IESG-accepted" conveyed better what actually happens.

The accepted term is "IESG approved".

> Does the IESG ever add "The IESG approves of this" to an Experimental RFC?

As a matter of fact text more or less along these lines was proposed for a
document yesterday.

> Surely what the IESG does in actual practice is to "accept" the RFC (by
> letting the RFD Editor publish it). That seems to mean "this is not (yet)
> a proposed standard, but the IESG is happy for this experiment to go
> ahead".

In actual practice the IESG uses the same approval process that is used
for standards track RFCs. Not using the same process has been tried, and does
not work well.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Clive D.W. Feather | 16 Dec 2003 11:34

Re: Re: ietf-nntp Niggles

Charles Lindsey said:
> >>       <abcd <at> example.com>
> >>       <"abcd" <at> example.com>
> >>       <"ab\cd" <at> example.com>
> >> 
> >>    as being identical. Therefore an NNTP implementation handing email
> >>    articles must ensure that only one of these three appears in the
> >>    protocol and the other two are converted to it as and when necessary,
> >>    such as when a client checks the results of a NEWNEWS command against
> >>    an internal database of message-ids.

> The current Usefor draft says:
> 
>    Msg-ids are redefined to be a "normalized" subset of those defined by
>    [RFC 2822], ensuring that no string of characters is quoted unless
>    strictly necessary (it must contain at least one mqspecial) and no
>    single character is prefixed by a "\" in the form of a quoted-pair
>    unless strictly necessary, and moreover there is no possibility for
>    ">" or WSP to occur inside a msg-id, whether quoted or not.

[..]

Okay, I've added to the end of that paragraph:

    Note that RFC 1036 never treats two different strings as being
    identical. Its draft successor restricts the syntax of message-ids so
    that, whenever RFC 2822 would treat two strings as equivalent, only
    one of them is valid.

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Clive D.W. Feather | 16 Dec 2003 11:37

Re: Re: ietf-nntp Niggles

This seems to have been overlooked:

>> Maybe you should be speaking of "Netnews articles" rather than "Usenet
>> articles". Opinions are often divided as to how "Usenet" is defined. Usefor
>> has taken the view that "Netnews" is the protocol, and "Usenet" is the
>> particularly large and well-known instantiation of that protocol.
> 
> Okay, I'm happy to be consistent with this.
> 
> One query - we have "global Usenet system" in the text. Should this
> change to "global Netnews system" or not.

Any opinions?

--

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive <at> demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive <at> davros.org>  | *** NOTE CHANGE ***
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
_______________________________________________
ietf-nntp mailing list
ietf-nntp <at> academ.com
https://www.academ.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nntp
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Clive D.W. Feather | 16 Dec 2003 12:19

Re: Re: ietf-nntp Niggles

Russ Allbery said:
>>>>    If the requested header is not present in the article or if it is
>>>>    present but empty, a line for that article is included in the output
>>> We had a long conversation about this and I believe the above is correct.
> Clive, I'm pretty sure my memory of this discussion is accurate, although
> if someone wants to troll through the archives, that would be welcome
> confirmation.  We did establish consensus on this, though; the draft just
> doesn't fully represent that consensus.

The discussion appears to have taken place in July 2002. If I'm
reading it correctly, we did settle on empty response for both empty header
and missing header.

<http://www.academ.com/pipermail/ietf-nntp/2002-July/002695.html>

There was also a suggestion that these could be distinguished by the
presence or absence of the space, or by a dash instead of a space. However,
there doesn't seem to have been any followup to either of those.

Okay, I've changed the text to read:

    If the information is available, it is returned as a multi-line
    response following the 225 response code and contains one line
!   for each article in the range that exists (note that unless the
    argument is a range including a dash, there will be at most one
    line but it will still be in multi-line format).  The line consists
    of the article number, a space, and then the contents of the header
    (without the header name or the colon and space that follow it) or
    metadata item.
[...]
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Russ Allbery | 16 Dec 2003 21:43
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Re: ietf-nntp Niggles

Clive D W Feather <clive <at> demon.net> writes:

> This seems to have been overlooked:

>>> Maybe you should be speaking of "Netnews articles" rather than "Usenet
>>> articles". Opinions are often divided as to how "Usenet" is defined. Usefor
>>> has taken the view that "Netnews" is the protocol, and "Usenet" is the
>>> particularly large and well-known instantiation of that protocol.

>> Okay, I'm happy to be consistent with this.

>> One query - we have "global Usenet system" in the text. Should this
>> change to "global Netnews system" or not.

> Any opinions?

When talking about the global system, it sounds to me like we're talking
about the instantiation of the protocol and Usenet is appropriate.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
_______________________________________________
ietf-nntp mailing list
ietf-nntp <at> academ.com
https://www.academ.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nntp
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 17 Dec 2003 16:52
Picon
Picon

Re: Re: ietf-nntp Niggles

In <20031216103439.GE5535 <at> finch-staff-1.thus.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive <at> demon.net> writes:

>Charles Lindsey said:
>> >>       <abcd <at> example.com>
>> >>       <"abcd" <at> example.com>
>> >>       <"ab\cd" <at> example.com>
>> >> 

>Okay, I've added to the end of that paragraph:

>    Note that RFC 1036 never treats two different strings as being
>    identical. Its draft successor restricts the syntax of message-ids so
>    that, whenever RFC 2822 would treat two strings as equivalent, only
>    one of them is valid.

Fine. You could possibly add "(e.g. <abcd <at> example.com> is the only valid
form in the examples above)".

--

-- 
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 <at> clerew.man.ac.uk      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
_______________________________________________
ietf-nntp mailing list
ietf-nntp <at> academ.com
https://www.academ.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nntp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 17 Dec 2003 16:49
Picon
Picon

Re: Re: ietf-nntp Niggles

In <87n09smr2v.fsf <at> windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra <at> stanford.edu> writes:

>Clive D W Feather <clive <at> demon.net> writes:

>>> One query - we have "global Usenet system" in the text. Should this
>>> change to "global Netnews system" or not.

>> Any opinions?

>When talking about the global system, it sounds to me like we're talking
>about the instantiation of the protocol and Usenet is appropriate.

Agreed.

I suppose Usenet2 (does it still exist?) could be described as "A" global
Netnews system but, by and large, Usenet it "THE" global Netnews system.

--

-- 
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 <at> clerew.man.ac.uk      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
_______________________________________________
ietf-nntp mailing list
ietf-nntp <at> academ.com
https://www.academ.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nntp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane