The IESG | 7 Nov 21:11 2002
Picon

Note Well Statement


>From time to time, especially just before a meeting, this statement is to
be sent to each and every IETF working group mailing list.
===========================================================================

				NOTE WELL

All statements related to the activities of the IETF and addressed to the
IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026, which grants
to the IETF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such
statements.

Such statements include verbal statements in IETF meetings, as well as
written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are
addressed to

    - the IETF plenary session,
    - any IETF working group or portion thereof,
    - the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
    - the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
    - any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself,
      any working group or design team list, or any other list
      functioning under IETF auspices,
    - the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function

Statements made outside of an IETF meeting, mailing list or other function,
that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or
function, are not subject to these provisions.

(Continue reading)

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz | 1 Nov 07:18 2002
Picon

Re: Extended newsgroup tags; another approach

In <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210271430080.18116-100000 <at> localhost.localdomain>,
on 10/27/2002
   at 02:49 PM, John Stanley <stanley <at> peak.org> said:

>Oh, really? It's rather stupid of you to lie about this.

It would have been stupid had I lied, which I did not.

>Now, I don't know about you, but when I compare the sentence I
>attributed to you and the line from the original email,

You conveniently overlooked the paragraph that you invented out of the
whole cloth. I wasn't claiming that the material you marked with ">"
was bogus, but your disingenuous alleged paraphrase. As you well know.

>And yet, you claim I didn't quote you,

No, I claimed that in addition to quoting me you lied about what I had
written. As you well know.

>You've neatly avoided discussing why you think it isn't worth doing
>unless it is done the way you want

And there you go again, repeating the same lie. ALL THE WORDS ABOVE
ARE YOURS, NOT MINE. IT IS NOT A QUOTE, IT IS A PARAPHRASE, AND NOT AN
HONEST PARAPHRASE.

>Wouldn't it have been easier to just admit your
>attitude and justify it in the beginning?

(Continue reading)

Charles Lindsey | 2 Nov 15:37 2002
Picon
Picon

Re: Extended newsgroup tags; another approach

In <rjbs5aoct6.fsf <at> zuse.dina.kvl.dk> Per Abrahamsen <abraham <at> dina.kvl.dk> writes:

>"Charles Lindsey" <chl <at> clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:

>> It will allow people to experiment, which it seems Claus wants people to
>> do.

>Experiment with what?  We can hardly use it to to experiment with the
>moderators address.

Well you would have to ask Claus about that, since he is the one
complaining that nothing has been tested and shown to work..

But people might want to send aricles in various forms, with/without
encapsulation and with/without misusing 8bit email headers, or various
attempts at RFC 2047/2231.

And people might want to test proposed approval mechanisms, forwarding
between several moderators, etc. And they might also want to try and break
it by cross-posting to misc.test.moderated.

And you (as moderator) would have to demonstrate at least a minimally
correct implementation of what our draft currently required.

--

-- 
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> clw.cs.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

(Continue reading)

Claus Färber | 3 Nov 12:53 2002
Picon

Re: Extended newsgroup tags; another approach

Charles Lindsey <chl <at> clw.cs.man.ac.uk> schrieb/wrote:
> In <rjbs5aoct6.fsf <at> zuse.dina.kvl.dk> Per Abrahamsen <abraham <at> dina.kvl.dk> writes:
>> "Charles Lindsey" <chl <at> clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
>>> It will allow people to experiment, which it seems Claus wants people to
>>> do.
>> Experiment with what?  We can hardly use it to to experiment with the
>> moderators address.

> Well you would have to ask Claus about that,...

I have absolutly no idea what you are referring to. You have to be a bit
more specific.
Or should I just say that you claim about what I want people to do (or
not to do) is simply invalid?

Claus
--

-- 
------------------------ http://www.faerber.muc.de/ ------------------------
OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0

Erland Sommarskog | 3 Nov 16:13 2002
Picon
Picon

Re: List of Issues (2nd edition)

Charles Lindsey <chl <at> clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
> Issue 1, alternative #0 (the present draft):
> --------------------------------------------
>
> a) UTF-8 is allowed in headers.
> b) RFC 2047/2231 is also allowed and is required for the mailed
>    component of posted-and-mailed.
> c) Newsgroup-names are encoded (5.2.2) when posted-and-mailed or sent to
>    moderators, but are raw UTF-8 on the wire.
>...
> Issue 1, alternative #1:
> ------------------------
> a-c) As #0
>...
> Issue 1, alternative #2:
> ------------------------
> a-d) As #0
>...
> Issue 1, alternative #3:
> ------------------------
> a-d) As #0
>...
> Issue 1, alternative #4:
> ------------------------
>
> Define only how to transform a newsgroup name into a moderator's
> email address alias.  Specify sending UTF-8-xtra-char in email
> headers. Even though this would not be compliant with current email
> standards, just hope that the IETF will still accept this draft.
>...
(Continue reading)

Erland Sommarskog | 3 Nov 16:22 2002
Picon
Picon

Language tags

greg andruk <gja <at> meowing.net> writes:
>Erland Sommarskog wrote:
>>Bruce Lilly made an issue of language tags in RFC2047, as if they were
>>in regular use today. I had never heard of them before. And when I tested
>>in a local test group, none of Xnews, Tin 1.5 or Gnus 5.9.0 appeared to
>>handle them. (The conclusion for the latter two are based on comments
>>to my test posting.)
>
>The language tagging requirement was explained to you long before Bruce
>mentioned it.  See  <http://www.landfield.com/usefor/1998/Feb/0022.html>

Explained? All that Chris Newman says in that message is "See RFC 2277",
That is not an explanation. That is a way of saying "I don't care if
you know what I'm talking about".

(No, I don't go around search the web, just because someone says "see
RFC xxxx" rather just giving a simple explanation what it is all about.)

>>And for the body? Unless you use Unicode with language indicators,
>>you are left to using one language in the body, or at least per
>>paragraph if you use multipart/mixed.
>
>Remember that there is also multipart/related, and that there are more media
>types than text/plain.

Remember? Do you think that I actually know MIME?

In any case, if you want to mark language in your message, and you
change languages within the same paragraph, and you are using some
plain-text format - which the norm in Usenet - how do you handle this
(Continue reading)

greg andruk | 3 Nov 21:32 2002
Picon

Re: Language tags

Quoting Erland Sommarskog <sommar-usefor <at> algonet.se>:

> Explained? All that Chris Newman says in that message is "See RFC 2277",
> That is not an explanation. That is a way of saying "I don't care if
> you know what I'm talking about".

*Sigh*.  Engineering can be dull work.  Research, particularly in the form of
reading the literature already published on a topic, is unfortunately a
necessary part of the process.  This _is_ ostensibly an engineering working group.

> (No, I don't go around search the web, just because someone says "see
> RFC xxxx" rather just giving a simple explanation what it is all about.)

The RFC is a simple explanation of what it is all about.

Charles Lindsey | 4 Nov 15:40 2002
Picon
Picon

Re: List of Issues (2nd edition)

In <20021103151345.14831.qmail <at> kairos.algonet.se> sommar-usefor <at> algonet.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:

>There is an opposition where between #5 and the rest. And if the list -
>God forbid - would settle on #5, there are a number of choices:
>-  Punycode.
>-  u_+RFC2231.
>-  charset not necessarily Unicode (Bruce Lilly's stance)
>-  no support at all for non-ASCII chars in newsgroup names

No, if (God forbidding or not) #5 is chosen, then further technical
discussions would be needed to decide on the exact encoding. I don't think
we want to include specific encodings in the poll because that would
involve detailed discussions of the various options and if (as some
people, God included or not) hope #5 is not chosen, then that would be so
much discussion wasted.

>In the same way, #1-4 are alternatives that all have UTF-8. If a vote
>results in 8 for #1, 9 for #2, 9 for #3, 2 for #4 and 10 for #5, the
>non-UTF-8 alternative has the most votes, but is still in clear
>minority.

No, the form of the Poll will be to ask each voter to place them in order
of preference.

So people who place #5 at the top of the list still get to
indicate which of the others they would prefer should they be outvoted.

Likewise, if people choose #1-4 in some order with #5 at the bottom of the
list, they are saying that they would prefer _any_ of #1-4 over #5, and
the result will reflect that if that is the majority opinion.
(Continue reading)

John Stanley | 4 Nov 19:47 2002

Re: Extended newsgroup tags; another approach


Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen <at> patriot.net):

>I wasn't claiming that the material you marked with ">" 
>was bogus, but your disingenuous alleged paraphrase. As you well know. 

and:

>No, I claimed that in addition to quoting me you lied about what I had 
>written. As you well know. 

Let's look at the tape, shall we? Here's another direct quote from you,
from Fri Oct 25 2002 - 00:36:22 CDT:

]Here's a nickle; buy yourself a dictionary and look up the word 
]"quote". You didn't quote me; you lied about what I said. 

There is no other way of reading the clause "You didn't quote me;" than as
a claim that I didn't quote you. I did quote you, as I've already shown,
and as anyone who looks in the archive can easily tell. I did not once
attribute to you words that you yourself did not write. "What you said"
appeared as you said it, sans changes.

>ALL THE WORDS ABOVE ARE YOURS, NOT MINE. IT IS NOT A QUOTE, ...

Since some of the "words above" in the message you replied to are a 
direct quote from email you sent, your statement is patently false.
And since you wrote a lot of the words that appear above this claim, you 
can't even try weasling out by saying you meant the words in the message
I'm now replying to. You wrote quite a bit of those words... which you now
(Continue reading)

Jacob Palme | 5 Nov 14:49 2002
Picon
Picon

Re:

At 15:58 +0100 02-10-10, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>2. If someone is writing a standards-track document (whether for news or
>email) and wishes to introduce some new header-fields that can make use
>of RFC 2047, what does he have to say?

Note that the MHTML standard, RFC 2557, says that RFC2047
should be used for encoding of URIs in Content-Location
headers.
--

-- 
Jacob Palme <jpalme <at> dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/


Gmane