headers
Charles Lindsey | 2 Dec 2002 11:00
Picon
Picon

Re: Mass Acknowledgement and 2nd Call: STRAW POLL on outstanding issues

In <Pine.SGI.4.40.0211291001550.75718472-100000 <at> shell01.TheWorld.com> Dan Schlitt
<schlitt <at> world.std.com> writes:

>In my observation of other working groups it is not the function of the
>document editor to determine group consensus. That is the duty of the
>group chair. Based on the discussion on the mailinglist the chair should
>suggest what the rough consensus is and gather the reaction of the
>mailinglist to that suggestion. Objections should be serious technical
>points that deal with the workability of the proposal.

The Straw Poll was conducted with the full approval of the Chair.

I hope to publish the results shortly.

--

-- 
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
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 3 Dec 2002 11:14
Picon
Picon

Followup-To: Poster

A recent post to one of the uk.* groups has highlighted a problem with the
case sensitivity or otherwise of the keyword "poster" in the
Followup-To-header.

At least two user agents failed to followup to "Poster", and there are
probably many more. However, according to a strict reading of ouir present
draft, that word is case-insensitive (because of RFC 2234). So questions:

1. Is it supposed to be case insensitive?

2. Do you want me to make it so in the draft (it is easily done)?

3. If so, do we want any SHOULD/MUST be liberal in accepting "Poster"?

--

-- 
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
Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Matt Curtin | 3 Dec 2002 14:25
X-Face

Re: Followup-To: Poster

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

> 1. Is it supposed to be case insensitive?

Yes.

> 2. Do you want me to make it so in the draft (it is easily done)?

I don't think a big deal should be made of it, in fact, I think it
only makes sense if we do so in the context of advice to implementors,
i.e.,

> 3. If so, do we want any SHOULD/MUST be liberal in accepting "Poster"?

We should probably note that it's a MUST because of our dependency on
ABNF, given that apparently not all implementors are doing the Right
Thing.

--

-- 
Matt Curtin, CISSP, IAM, INTP.  Keywords: Lisp, Unix, Internet, INFOSEC.
Founder, Interhack Corporation +1 614 545 HACK http://web.interhack.com/
Author of /Developing Trust: Online Privacy and Security/ (Apress, 2001)
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Henry Spencer | 3 Dec 2002 16:24

Re: Followup-To: Poster

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 1. Is it supposed to be case insensitive?

Historically it has generally been treated as case-sensitive, I think.

                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       henry <at> spsystems.net
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 3 Dec 2002 15:49
Picon
Picon

REsults of Straw Poll

Votes were received from 18 members of the Working Group.

Issue 1 - (8BIT HEADERS)
------------------------

#X CONSENSUS LIMIT-----------------------------------------------------------+
#6 ALL 8bit ENCODED; NO I18N GROUPS---------------------------------------+  |
#5 ALL 8bit ENCODED on the wire----------------------------------------+  |  |
#4 SEND 8bit REGARDLESS---------------------------------------------+  |  |  |
#3 8bit in MODERATED - SHOULD NOT YET----------------------------+  |  |  |  |
#2 8bit in MODERATED - MUST NOT-------------------------------+  |  |  |  |  |
#1 STRICT EMAIL COMPLIANCE---------------------------------+  |  |  |  |  |  |
#0 the PRESENT DRAFT------------------------------------+  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Bill McQuillan                                          6  3  5  4  8  1  2  7
Claus Färber                                            6  5  8  7  4  1  2  3
Kent Landfield                                          2  1  4  3  5  6  7  4
Thorfinn                                                2  1  3  4  5  7  8  6
Russ Allbery                                            7  3  8  6  4  1  2  5
Charles Lindsey                                         2  3  6  1  4  7  8  5
Per Abrahamsen                                          4  3  1  2  6  5  8  7
Paul Overell                                            5  2  3  4  7  1  6  2
Forrest J. Cavalier                                     3  3  4  4  5  1  1  2
Erland Sommarsko                                        1  4  3  2  5  8  7  6
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz                                1  6  3  2  4  5  7  6
Clive Feather                                           2  2  2  2  1  4  5  3
Jean-Marc Desperrier                                    2  5  4  1  3  7  6  5
Henry Spencer                                           1  2  7  5  6  3  8  4
John Moreno                                             1  2  5  4  3  6  7  4
G Andruk                                                7  4  5  6  8  2  1  3
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 4 Dec 2002 12:11
Picon
Picon

Re: Followup-To: Poster

In <86isybz13n.fsf <at> rowlf.interhack.net> Matt Curtin <cmcurtin <at> interhack.net> writes:

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

>> 1. Is it supposed to be case insensitive?

>Yes.

Hmm. Henry seems to think otherwise, and so does Andrew Gierth (in an
article on uk.net.news.management).

>> 2. Do you want me to make it so in the draft (it is easily done)?

>I don't think a big deal should be made of it, in fact, I think it
>only makes sense if we do so in the context of advice to implementors,
>i.e.,

>> 3. If so, do we want any SHOULD/MUST be liberal in accepting "Poster"?

>We should probably note that it's a MUST because of our dependency on
>ABNF, given that apparently not all implementors are doing the Right
>Thing.

It is a MUST as the draft as currently written for that reason, but the
suggestion is that should be changed (there are other places where we have
made things case sensitive by writing the required string explicitly in
hex, for example "Re: ").

--

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Matt Curtin | 4 Dec 2002 13:51
X-Face

Re: Followup-To: Poster

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

> Hmm. Henry seems to think otherwise, and so does Andrew Gierth (in
> an article on uk.net.news.management).

I was thinking that case sensitivity was the exception, rather than
the rule.  I think I might have been wrong, though.

I did some poking around with Gnus and INN, and came up with a few
things. 

With INN 1.7.2:
 o Newsgroup names are (of course) case sensitive
 o Headers with names posted in lower-case (e.g., "newsgroups",
   "from", and "organization" in my test) were accepted.
 o Articles posted with lower-case headers, when read, were presented
   with mixed-case, i.e., "Newsgroups", "From", and "Organization".

The third item came as a surprise to me, but now that I'm thinking
about it more carefully, I have the feeling that it should not have
been a surprise.

I realize that we're talking about a few different things here (header
names vs. contents and server vs. client behavior).

I just checked the sources for Gnus 5.8.8, and its behavior is:
 o Handles Followup-to: poster case-insensitively
 o When creating an article, it doesn't understand "Poster" or
   "pOsTeR" (it prompts about an unknown group), but it does
   understand "poster".  You can put Followup-to: PoStEr and answer
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Matt Curtin | 4 Dec 2002 13:58
X-Face

Re: Followup-To: Poster

Matt Curtin <cmcurtin <at> interhack.net> writes:

>  o When creating an article, it doesn't understand "Poster" or
>    "pOsTeR" (it prompts about an unknown group), but it does
>    understand "poster".  You can put Followup-to: PoStEr and answer
>    yes to the prompt, and it will try to post the article.

The above is, naturally, evidence that either I:
 a) Am a moron (possible), or
 b) Have not yet imbibed enough caffeine (hopefully more likely)

The reason why Gnus responds as it does is because it's interpreting
the 441 from the server.

This is also why I prefer news to mailing lists.  With the latter, I
could have superseded my article before anyone ever saw my goof. :-)

--

-- 
Matt Curtin, CISSP, IAM, INTP.  Keywords: Lisp, Unix, Internet, INFOSEC.
Founder, Interhack Corporation +1 614 545 HACK http://web.interhack.com/
Author of /Developing Trust: Online Privacy and Security/ (Apress, 2001)
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bill Davidsen | 4 Dec 2002 14:58
Picon
Favicon

Re: Followup-To: Poster

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Charles Lindsey wrote:

> A recent post to one of the uk.* groups has highlighted a problem with the
> case sensitivity or otherwise of the keyword "poster" in the
> Followup-To-header.
> 
> At least two user agents failed to followup to "Poster", and there are
> probably many more. However, according to a strict reading of ouir present
> draft, that word is case-insensitive (because of RFC 2234). So questions:
> 
> 1. Is it supposed to be case insensitive?

I don't think we ever said one thing or the other, but I see no benefit 
to case distinction.

> 2. Do you want me to make it so in the draft (it is easily done)?

Yes, see next.

> 3. If so, do we want any SHOULD/MUST be liberal in accepting "Poster"?

I think SHOULD, I see this as a nice thing but solving a very small 
problem. It is slightly more expensive to compare case insensitive, I 
suppose someone will see that as a problem, or at least whine about it if 
required.

--

-- 
   -bill davidsen (davidsen <at> darkstar.prodigy.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Barr | 4 Dec 2002 17:18
Favicon

RE: REsults of Straw Poll

>     "10 people out of 18 were willing to accept the #1 
> decision" or  "only 4 people out of 18 were unwilling to 
> accept the #1 decision"
> 
> I think this has to be discussed on the List, and then our 
> Chairman has to declare whether that amounts to rough 
> consensus, or else he has to take advice from the IESG.

Given the number of options, it's not bad to see an arguably "narrow"
majority (10 out of 18) for one position.  The 4 out of 18 is a clear
indication that #1 clearly is overwhelmingingly considered a good
decision.  The fact remains we still have some others that we also
consider "good", but fundamentally it comes down to picking something
that is clearly acceptable to the large majority and moving forward.
That, fundamentally, is the definition of consensus.

I declare that #1 has achieved rough consensus and we should move
forward on that basis.

[ One note on why I didn't vote - I was out of town for the past two
weeks and couldn't devote sufficient time to study all the options to my
satisfaction, however my vote would have been fairly consistent with the
consensus positions ]

> The majority view here was evidently to split the document. 
> Although the majority was not huge, enough people placed #X 
> as their third choice to make it clear that the majority 
> decision should be accepted by all. In fact, the majority 
> against #X was 13:4 (only 1 abstention this time) and I think 
> that is a clear "rough consensus".
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane