headers
Forrest J. Cavalier III | 1 Dec 2006 05:18

Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document


Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Russ Allbery wrote:
>  
> 
>>I started from the existing draft and worked under the assumption
>>that any technical requirement in the existing draft was presumed
>>to be correct unless I had a clear justification in mind for changing
>>it.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
>> * Drop mvgroup and initial articles.
> 
> 
> I like 'mvgroup' as idea.  If it's hopeless in practice getting rid
> of it is no showstopper, but I'd like to know your justification for
> this modification.

We are not chartered to produce an experimental RFC. (I don't
have a problem with someone going off and doing that. But I
have always objected to it happening here.)

Many features got into the drafts under a sadly mistaken assumption
about how the world works. Including a feature in a "proposed standard"
does NOT mean that future implementors could be forced or shamed into
implementing it.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 1 Dec 2006 13:52
Picon
Picon

Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document


Russ Allbery wrote:

 [mvgroup] 
> My justification is that it's an entirely experimental feature
> which has not been implemented in any news server distribution
> that I'm aware of.  No one is currently issuing them

<sigh>  Okay, so far for the dream that renaming groups could
be anything else but a nightmare in future.  Even in standalone
servers like GMaNe where it would only affect some "leafnodes".

> The one exception, which I think may have been a mistake to 
> retain, was the additional arguments to checkgroups.

The last time I watched a de.alt vs. de.!alt discussion most
users claimed that de.alt is an integral part of de.all -- my
personal impression (arguing on the side of the minority, who
considered that as unfriendly takeover of de.alt).  We could
remove that case as example in usepro-06 5.2.4.  </sigh>

> USEFOR, which I was treating as sacrosanct.

+1

>> Maybe we can add a recommendation to split control.cancel in
>> some appropriate way (for modem users like me when they try
>> to figure out if some rogue cancel bot is at it again)

> I think that's more a USEAGE thing.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
Forrest J. Cavalier III | 1 Dec 2006 16:15

Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document


Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
>  [mvgroup] 
> 
>>My justification is that it's an entirely experimental feature
>>which has not been implemented in any news server distribution
>>that I'm aware of.  No one is currently issuing them
> 
> 
> <sigh>  Okay, so far for the dream that renaming groups could
> be anything else but a nightmare in future.  Even in standalone
> servers like GMaNe where it would only affect some "leafnodes".

What is the disadvantage with doing a separate experimental RFC?
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 1 Dec 2006 16:41
Picon
Picon

USEFOR-11 troubles


Hi, Usefor-11 didn't make it in the first attempt, it got two [DISCUSS]:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2253&filename=draft-ietf-usefor-usefor

Sam proposes to use a normative reference to USEPRO.  Russ Houley's
[DISCUSS] is in a similar direction, he wants to make sure that the
"security considerations" in USEPRO (referenced by USEFOR) are not
lost, i.e. published in a RFC, not only in an I-D.

Sam has some questions about mail2news gateways.  For some "more
discussion" about the Article Format GMaNe offers a list archive
with about 25,000 articles since 1997,  AFAIK mail2news gateways
had no serious difficulties to transform 822 to 1036 format in the
last decades, and MESSFOR to USEFOR is in essence the same issue:

Add magic SP, emulate missing References as explained in 2822 if
there's an In-Reply-To, fix most obs-stuff because it's illegal in
NetNews, add missing Message-ID or better reject mails without a
Message-ID if there can be other gateways of the same article, the
works, some of the technical details will be discussed in USEPRO.

Discussing gateway considerations in USEFOR would be a bad plan,
but maybe we're forced to accept a normative USEPRO reference.  If
that's the case we could also fix one [COMMENT] in the evaluation:

s/192.0.168.1/192.0.2.1/  RFC 4408 got that right, no idea why
we missed it for USEFOR, is that a missing feature in 'idnits' ?

Frank
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 1 Dec 2006 17:03
Picon
Picon

Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document


Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:

> What is the disadvantage with doing a separate experimental RFC?

In theory fine.  But my interpretation of Russ' and your comments
is that it's pointless:  The USEFOR drafts proposed 'mvgroup' for
some years, so far nobody implemented it, no additional experiment
necessary to confirm its death.

Not volunteering to write a separate 'mvgroup' I-D:  Frank

P.S.:  BTW, we need the WG Charter update soon, Russ proposed to
add an I-D about news batches.  If anybody here's interested we
could also add the news/nntp URI stuff, otherwise I'll intend to
send a 'publication request' on the day when USEFOR is approved.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Ken Murchison | 1 Dec 2006 17:45
Picon

Re: USEFOR-11 troubles


Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Discussing gateway considerations in USEFOR would be a bad plan,
> but maybe we're forced to accept a normative USEPRO reference.  If
> that's the case we could also fix one [COMMENT] in the evaluation:
> 
> s/192.0.168.1/192.0.2.1/  RFC 4408 got that right, no idea why
> we missed it for USEFOR, is that a missing feature in 'idnits' ?

Right.  That entire example was already in my copy changed to:

posting-host = "posting.example.com:192.0.2.1"

I will make the change when the I-D gets to AUTH48, unless we need to 
put out a -12 to fix the reference to USEPRO.

--

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Systems Programmer
Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer
Carnegie Mellon University
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 1 Dec 2006 17:49
Picon

Re: USEFOR-11 troubles


Thanks Frank - I have "compose a reply" on my TODO list.
I'll CC the WG when I do.

           Harald

--On 1. desember 2006 16:41 +0100 Frank Ellermann 
<nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:

>
> Hi, Usefor-11 didn't make it in the first attempt, it got two [DISCUSS]:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&b
> allot_id=2253&filename=draft-ietf-usefor-usefor
>
> Sam proposes to use a normative reference to USEPRO.  Russ Houley's
> [DISCUSS] is in a similar direction, he wants to make sure that the
> "security considerations" in USEPRO (referenced by USEFOR) are not
> lost, i.e. published in a RFC, not only in an I-D.
>
> Sam has some questions about mail2news gateways.  For some "more
> discussion" about the Article Format GMaNe offers a list archive
> with about 25,000 articles since 1997,  AFAIK mail2news gateways
> had no serious difficulties to transform 822 to 1036 format in the
> last decades, and MESSFOR to USEFOR is in essence the same issue:
>
> Add magic SP, emulate missing References as explained in 2822 if
> there's an In-Reply-To, fix most obs-stuff because it's illegal in
> NetNews, add missing Message-ID or better reject mails without a
> Message-ID if there can be other gateways of the same article, the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Russ Allbery | 1 Dec 2006 19:05
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document


Frank Ellermann <nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> writes:

> The last time I watched a de.alt vs. de.!alt discussion most users
> claimed that de.alt is an integral part of de.all -- my personal
> impression (arguing on the side of the minority, who considered that as
> unfriendly takeover of de.alt).  We could remove that case as example in
> usepro-06 5.2.4.  </sigh>

As a news server administrator whose users want me to carry de.* but who
cares nothing at all about newsgroup creation policies in de.*, I am
*delighted* that the de.* checkgroups includes de.alt.*.  If it didn't, I
wouldn't carry de.alt.* at all.

If one really wishes to have an administratively separate hierarchy, it's
far better to do what it.* did in creating it-alt.*.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Russ Allbery | 1 Dec 2006 19:07
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Proposing a new editor for the USEPRO document


Frank Ellermann <nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> writes:
> Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:

>> What is the disadvantage with doing a separate experimental RFC?

> In theory fine.  But my interpretation of Russ' and your comments
> is that it's pointless:  The USEFOR drafts proposed 'mvgroup' for
> some years, so far nobody implemented it, no additional experiment
> necessary to confirm its death.

> Not volunteering to write a separate 'mvgroup' I-D:  Frank

> P.S.:  BTW, we need the WG Charter update soon, Russ proposed to
> add an I-D about news batches.

An I-D covering the XBATCH extension is mostly an NNTP I-D; the batch
format would be ancillary.  If I wrote such a thing, it would be as an
informational RFC via individual submission, not as a WG document.

The batch format really has nothing to do with USEFOR.  It's a transport
artifact.

Prior to working on that, though, I'd instead document the pgpverify and
PGPMoose protocols as informational RFCs, and those are more on-topic for
this WG.  But I have no idea when I'll have time.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Russ Allbery | 1 Dec 2006 19:21
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: USEFOR-11 troubles


Frank Ellermann <nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> writes:

> Hi, Usefor-11 didn't make it in the first attempt, it got two [DISCUSS]:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2253&filename=draft-ietf-usefor-usefor

> Sam proposes to use a normative reference to USEPRO.  Russ Houley's
> [DISCUSS] is in a similar direction, he wants to make sure that the
> "security considerations" in USEPRO (referenced by USEFOR) are not
> lost, i.e. published in a RFC, not only in an I-D.

Reviewing USEPRO brought home to me that it's not possible to implement a
useful piece of Netnews software other than a pure article reader with
only the information in USEFOR.  That doesn't necessarily mean that USEFOR
can't advance separately as an underlying format which is then used by a
later standard, but that's definitely the approach we'd have to take to
sever the documents, which means that USEFOR will need to have no
normative references to USEPRO.

There are several that seem rather normative to me having just gone
through all of USEPRO, apart from the security considerations.  Section
3.1.4 says that control messages are defined in USEPRO, section 3.1.5
defers to USEPRO for the definition of <diag-keyword>, section 3.1.6
defers to USEPRO for the content of the Subject header (and that reference
I think could simply be dropped, as the only place that USEPRO discusses
the Subject header is in the context of a followup and then only as a
MAY), section 3.2 states that further requirements for optional header
fields are in USEPRO, section 3.2.3 defers to USEPRO for valid control
message <verb>s, and section 3.2.12 defines the action of Supersedes in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |

Gmane