rra | 4 Aug 01:02 2008
Picon

Commit in docs/usefor (usepro.xml)


    Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008  <at>  16:02:50
  Author: eagle
Revision: 4226

Add a section describing the history mechanism and algorithm.  Update
references in Duties of an Injecting Agent and Duties of a Serving
Agent accordingly, moving the specifics of date-based rejection from
the Duties sections to the history section and making clearer the
distinction between the protocol requirement and the implications of
specific implementations satisfying that requirement.

Modified:
  docs/usefor/usepro.xml

Modified: docs/usefor/usepro.xml
===================================================================
--- docs/usefor/usepro.xml	2008-08-03 21:07:34 UTC (rev 4225)
+++ docs/usefor/usepro.xml	2008-08-03 23:02:50 UTC (rev 4226)
 <at>  <at>  -452,6 +452,66  <at>  <at> 
         </section>
       </section>

+      <section anchor="history"
+               title="Article History and Duplicate Suppression">
+        <t>Netnews normally uses a flood-fill algorithm for propagation of
+        articles in which each news server offers the articles it accepts
+        to multiple peers and each news server may be offered the same
+        article from multiple other news servers.  Accordingly, duplicate
+        suppression is key; if a news server accepted every article it was
(Continue reading)

rra | 4 Aug 01:03 2008
Picon

Commit in docs/usefor (usepro.xml)


    Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008  <at>  16:03:51
  Author: eagle
Revision: 4227

Make usepro-10.

Modified:
  docs/usefor/usepro.xml

Modified: docs/usefor/usepro.xml
===================================================================
--- docs/usefor/usepro.xml	2008-08-03 23:02:50 UTC (rev 4226)
+++ docs/usefor/usepro.xml	2008-08-03 23:03:51 UTC (rev 4227)
 <at>  <at>  -26,7 +26,7  <at>  <at> 
     'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4288.xml'>
 ]>

-<rfc ipr="full3978" docName="draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-09" obsoletes="1036"
+<rfc ipr="full3978" docName="draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-10" obsoletes="1036"
      category="std">
   <front>
     <title>Netnews Architecture and Protocols</title>
 <at>  <at>  -62,7 +62,7  <at>  <at> 
       </address>
     </author>

-    <date month="November" year="2007" />
+    <date month="August" year="2008" />

(Continue reading)

rra | 4 Aug 01:15 2008
Picon

Commit in docs/usefor (usepro.xml)


    Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008  <at>  16:15:34
  Author: eagle
Revision: 4229

Purely syntactical fixes to eliminate warnings from xml2rfc.

Modified:
  docs/usefor/usepro.xml

Modified: docs/usefor/usepro.xml
===================================================================
--- docs/usefor/usepro.xml	2008-08-03 23:04:12 UTC (rev 4228)
+++ docs/usefor/usepro.xml	2008-08-03 23:15:34 UTC (rev 4229)
 <at>  <at>  -1369,18 +1369,18  <at>  <at> 
    Required parameters:      none
    Optional parameters:      One and only one of "usage=moderate",
                              "usage=inject", or "usage=relay".
-   Encoding considerations:  A transfer-encoding different from that of
-                             the article transmitted MAY be supplied to
-                             ensure correct transmission over some 7bit
-                             transport medium.
+   Encoding considerations:  A transfer-encoding different from that
+                             of the article transmitted MAY be
+                             supplied to ensure correct transmission
+                             over some 7bit transport medium.
    Security considerations:  A news article may be a control message,
                              which if processed could have effects on
                              the recipient host's system beyond just
                              storage of the article.
(Continue reading)

Internet-Drafts | 4 Aug 01:30 2008
Picon

I-D Action:draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-10.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Usenet Article Standard Update Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Netnews Architecture and Protocols
	Author(s)       : R. Allbery, C. Lindsey
	Filename        : draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-10.txt
	Pages           : 50
	Date            : 2008-08-03

This document defines the architecture of Netnews systems and
specifies the correct manipulation and interpretation of Netnews
articles by software which originates, distributes, stores, and
displays them.  It also specifies the requirements that must be met
by any protocol used to transport and serve Netnews articles.Internet
Draft Comments

Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the Usenet Format
Working Group at ietf-usefor <at> imc.org.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-10.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
Attachment (draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-10.txt): message/external-body, 70 bytes
(Continue reading)

Russ Allbery | 4 Aug 01:37 2008
Picon

Re: #1416


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

> 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.

I think there's also a remaining point of disagreement over whether
injection agents SHOULD reject articles with a stale Date.

I just submitted draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-10 including the (I believe
non-controversial) new history section and corresponding rewordings in the
duties of a relaying and serving agent.  Below is the remaining diff for
my solution for #1416.  Please note if any of the below is uncontroversial
so that I can commit those sections and reduce the diff to only the
disputed portion.

--- usepro.xml	2008-08-03 16:12:51.000000000 -0700
+++ usepro-1416.xml	2008-08-03 16:34:50.000000000 -0700
 <at>  <at>  -18,6 +18,8  <at>  <at> 
     'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2822.xml'>
   <!ENTITY rfc3629 PUBLIC '' 
     'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3629.xml'>
+  <!ENTITY rfc3798 PUBLIC '' 
+    'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3798.xml'>
   <!ENTITY rfc3977 PUBLIC '' 
     'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3977.xml'>
   <!ENTITY rfc4234 PUBLIC '' 
(Continue reading)

Charles Lindsey | 4 Aug 16:08 2008
Picon
Picon

Re: #1416


In <87tze1y8jc.fsf <at> windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra <at> stanford.edu> writes:

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

>> 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.

>I think there's also a remaining point of disagreement over whether
>injection agents SHOULD reject articles with a stale Date.

>I just submitted draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-10 including the (I believe
>non-controversial) new history section and corresponding rewordings in the
>duties of a relaying and serving agent.  Below is the remaining diff for
>my solution for #1416.  Please note if any of the below is uncontroversial
>so that I can commit those sections and reduce the diff to only the
>disputed portion.

90% of what follows is agreed, and it might be helpful to get it into an
ID so that we can see it all in context, and then argue over the small
remaining difference. Such concerns as I have with the rest of it are all
in the "niggles" category.

>             <t>It SHOULD reject any proto-article whose Newsgroups header
>             field does not contain at least one &lt;newsgroup-name> for a
> <at>  <at>  -770,8 +829,14  <at>  <at> 
>             the source of the article and possibly other trace information
(Continue reading)

Harald Alvestrand | 5 Aug 13:00 2008
Picon

Re: #1416


>
> -            <t>The injecting agent MUST then add an Injection-Date header
> -            field containing the current date and time.</t>
> +            <t>If the proto-article already had an Injection-Date header
> +            field, it MUST NOT be modified or replaced.  If the
> +            proto-article had both a Message-ID header field and a Date
> +            header field, an Injection-Date header field MUST NOT be
> +            added, since the proto-article may have been multiply injected
> +            by a posting agent that predates this standard.  Otherwise,
> +            the injecting agent MUST add an Injection-Date header field
> +            containing the current date and time.</t>
This ("if the prot-article had both a Message-ID header field and a Date 
header field") is the place that bothers me most, since it will mean 
that singly injected articles produced by "modern" UAs that generate 
their own message-IDs will never get an Injection-Date header field.

It seems to sacrifice a general goal (that messages should have 
Injection-Date) for a narrow benefit (that multiple copies of multiply 
injected articles that are injected over a large span of time won't be 
detected as duplicates by servers that check Injection-Date and ignore 
Date).

I'm not sure that's the right tradeoff.

                        Harald

Russ Allbery | 6 Aug 23:54 2008
Picon

Re: #1416


Harald Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:

>> -            <t>The injecting agent MUST then add an Injection-Date header
>> -            field containing the current date and time.</t>
>> +            <t>If the proto-article already had an Injection-Date header
>> +            field, it MUST NOT be modified or replaced.  If the
>> +            proto-article had both a Message-ID header field and a Date
>> +            header field, an Injection-Date header field MUST NOT be
>> +            added, since the proto-article may have been multiply injected
>> +            by a posting agent that predates this standard.  Otherwise,
>> +            the injecting agent MUST add an Injection-Date header field
>> +            containing the current date and time.</t>

> This ("if the prot-article had both a Message-ID header field and a Date
> header field") is the place that bothers me most, since it will mean
> that singly injected articles produced by "modern" UAs that generate
> their own message-IDs will never get an Injection-Date header field.

Yes, this is the point of disagreement.

> It seems to sacrifice a general goal (that messages should have
> Injection-Date) for a narrow benefit (that multiple copies of multiply
> injected articles that are injected over a large span of time won't be
> detected as duplicates by servers that check Injection-Date and ignore
> Date).

> I'm not sure that's the right tradeoff.

This is the topic that we've gone back and forth on at some length.  To
(Continue reading)

Charles Lindsey | 7 Aug 12:44 2008
Picon
Picon

Re: #1416


In <873alhollc.fsf <at> windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra <at> stanford.edu> writes:

>This is the topic that we've gone back and forth on at some length.  To
>summarize my opinion:

>* I'm not sure that having all messages have Injection-Date header fields
>  should be a general goal of this work.  The header is primarily useful
>  when Date is well in the past and not that useful otherwise.  It's
>  certainly fine if we get there, but I don't think getting there is a
>  high priority.

>* The Injection-Date feature will not realistically be able to be used to
>  allow for articles with very old Date headers for the forseeable future,
>  possibly ever.  It will require upgrading all servers to use
>  Injection-Date rather than Date, which I think is very unlikely to
>  happen.  Accordingly, the benefit of servers adding Injection-Date is
>  fairly minor for the forseeable future; the only effect will be somewhat
>  more correct behavior with articles with borderline Dates.

>* Given the very slow development pace of netnews software, I think
>  backward compatibility should be our highest goal.

Not surprisingly, I take an opposite view on all of the above.

>I'm unlikely to change my mind in this area, but I'm happy to be
>overridden by the working group if other people just don't agree with me.
>If that happens, I'll gladly prepare a document that implements Charles's
>approach.

(Continue reading)

Forrest J. Cavalier III | 7 Aug 14:20 2008

Re: #1416


Charles Lindsey wrote:
> Agreed. Clearly Russ's vote for IR is cancelled out by my vote for IC, so
> it is the rest of the WG that gets to make the choice. But we need to get
> that choice made so that we can move on.
> 

I'm with Russ, if that matters to the chair.

I have no idea why every vote counts equally here, for two reasons.

1. Russ has experience writing and maintaining news server software for a 
production environment.  I do too.  Others here do too.

2. Technical merit matters.  I agree completely with Russ's statements
about how rapidly software will get changed in production.  There is
lots of evidence for that in the last decade.  I believe that
the choices in what you call "IR" are appropriate for that.


Gmane