headers
Lisa Dusseault | 28 Jul 2008 10:45
Favicon

Plan to finish draft-ietf-usefor-usepro


I've consulted with the chairs, and we feel that the current version  
of draft-ietf-usefor-usepro (-09) is a definite improvement on  
RFC1036.  Since there has been no activity for at least six months,  
and the WGLC was in 2006, I plan to put this document forward for IETF  
Last Call.  I will do so on or after Aug 29.  If the WG manages to  
close any more issues and issue another version, that's even better,  
but I will request publication for -09 if that's the latest version  
issued by Aug 29.

I do appreciate all the work that has gone into this and this action  
does not prevent future work, future RFCs etc.  However, it looks like  
publishing this doc completes the work USEFOR was chartered to do, and  
I expect the USEFOR WG ought to close then, so further work would have  
to involve individual submissions (if appropriate) or a new WG.

Thanks,
Lisa Dusseault
Permalink | Reply | 19 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 28 Jul 2008 15:14
Picon
Picon

Re: Plan to finish draft-ietf-usefor-usepro


In <9442EF79-36EC-470E-A1A0-1FED84065F96 <at> commerce.net> Lisa Dusseault
<ldusseault <at> commerce.net> writes:

>I've consulted with the chairs, and we feel that the current version  
>of draft-ietf-usefor-usepro (-09) is a definite improvement on  
>RFC1036.  Since there has been no activity for at least six months,  
>and the WGLC was in 2006, I plan to put this document forward for IETF  
>Last Call.  I will do so on or after Aug 29.  If the WG manages to  
>close any more issues and issue another version, that's even better,  
>but I will request publication for -09 if that's the latest version  
>issued by Aug 29.

The reason there has been no activity is that the cahirs have declined
to poll the members on the main outstanding issue, to see whether or not
there is a consensus one way or the other. There is just the one important
outstanding technical issue AFAIAA.

OTOH, the actual text, and some non-technical issues such as Security
Considerations still require review.

I remains, as always, willing to participate.

--

-- 
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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 28 Jul 2008 19:27
Picon
Picon

Re: Plan to finish draft-ietf-usefor-usepro


Charles Lindsey wrote:

> as always, willing to participate.

Remotely related, in conjunction with the "Expires:" revival
for mail (discussed on the 822 list) I checked if usepro-09
says something about expires/expiration that could conflict
with this proposal.

As expected it doesn't.  But I vaguely recall that Russ had
a good explanation how a history works.  Was it never added
to the draft ?  

 Frank
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Russ Allbery | 29 Jul 2008 00:02
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Plan to finish draft-ietf-usefor-usepro


Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault <at> commerce.net> writes:

> I've consulted with the chairs, and we feel that the current version of
> draft-ietf-usefor-usepro (-09) is a definite improvement on RFC1036.
> Since there has been no activity for at least six months, and the WGLC
> was in 2006, I plan to put this document forward for IETF Last Call.  I
> will do so on or after Aug 29.  If the WG manages to close any more
> issues and issue another version, that's even better, but I will request
> publication for -09 if that's the latest version issued by Aug 29.

I will release at least one newer draft that includes the explanation of
how history works, since I believe that section is uncontroversial.  I
will try to do that soon.

The remaining controversy is over Injection-Date handling.  I think the WG
reached a consensus that the language in -09 is not a good idea.  I have
one proposed replacement text and Charles has another.  (Please someone
else correct me if I got this wrong; it's been a long time.  All I know
for sure is that I have a replacement text.)  I think either of those
would be an improvement over the current text, which is muddled and not
particularly clear.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Permalink | Reply | 15 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 29 Jul 2008 13:06
Picon
Picon

#1416 (WAS: Plan to finish ...)


In <871w1dzmzj.fsf <at> windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra <at> stanford.edu> writes:

>The remaining controversy is over Injection-Date handling.  I think the WG
>reached a consensus that the language in -09 is not a good idea.  I have
>one proposed replacement text and Charles has another.  (Please someone
>else correct me if I got this wrong; it's been a long time.  All I know
>for sure is that I have a replacement text.)  I think either of those
>would be an improvement over the current text, which is muddled and not
>particularly clear.

The nature of Issue #1416 changed quite a bit over its lifetime. My
original objection was overcome when Russ proposed to allow (and even
require in some situations) User Agents to insert an Injection-Date,
which was a neat solution.

That left just one small worry. I wanted (version IC) Injection Agents to
_always_ insert an Injection-Date (except when it was already present, of
course). Russ argued (version IR) that this would sometimes cause existing
implementations to behave oddly, and proposed a less-intuitive rule
for when Injection Agents should insert it.

To avoid repeating my summary yet again, I have put it up at
   <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/drafts/issue-1416>

I still claim that Russ's propblem will arise so rarely and affect so few
readers (who might occasionally see the same article twice), that it is a
reasonable payoff in view of the simpler protocol.

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 29 Jul 2008 13:12
Picon
Picon

Re: Plan to finish draft-ietf-usefor-usepro


In <g6kvgd$s3f$1 <at> ger.gmane.org> "Frank Ellermann" <nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> writes:

>Remotely related, in conjunction with the "Expires:" revival
>for mail (discussed on the 822 list) I checked if usepro-09
>says something about expires/expiration that could conflict
>with this proposal.

>As expected it doesn't.  But I vaguely recall that Russ had
>a good explanation how a history works.  Was it never added
>to the draft ?  

There is no protocol action required when an Expires header is seen, so
nothing for USEPRO to specify about it (it was not mentioned in the
my earlier usepro[0-6] drafts either). Various Agents MAY (and probably
will) act upon it, but that would be a matter for USEAGE, if we ever get
that far.

--

-- 
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
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane