headers
Julien ÉLIE | 5 Dec 2009 13:27
Favicon

Re: Lines count in USEFOR


Hi,

> 3.3.1.  Lines
>
>   The Lines header field indicates the number of lines in the <body>
>   (as defined in [RFC5322]) of the article.
>
>   lines           =  "Lines:" SP *WSP 1*DIGIT *WSP CRLF
>
>   The line count is the number of CRLF separators in the <body>.
>
>   Historically, this header field was used by the NNTP [RFC3977]
>   overview facility, but its use for this purpose is now deprecated.
>   As a result, this header field is to be regarded as obsolescent, and
>   it is likely to be removed entirely in a future version of this
>   standard.  All agents SHOULD ignore it and SHOULD NOT generate it.

Hmm...
And what happens to currently existing headers feeds?  (look at Diablo
for instance)

The Lines: header is still useful (and probably also the Bytes: one)
to have an idea of the length of the body of the article.

--

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Pour défendre une cause, un avocat met sa robe. Une femme... l'enlève. »
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Russ Allbery | 5 Dec 2009 21:58
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Lines count in USEFOR


Julien ÉLIE <julien <at> trigofacile.com> writes:

> Hmm...
> And what happens to currently existing headers feeds?  (look at Diablo
> for instance)

> The Lines: header is still useful (and probably also the Bytes: one)
> to have an idea of the length of the body of the article.

I suspect the right thing to do there is to define the header feed as
providing the NNTP :lines and :bytes metadata as opposed to actual headers
from the article.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Julien ÉLIE | 19 Dec 2009 11:31
Favicon

Missing Path: header in USEPRO newgroup sample


Hi,

In RFC 5537 (USEPRO), the newgroup control message example (§ 5.2.1.1)
does not have the mandatory Path: header field.  It is only a proto-article
here.

A control message is defined in § 5 as an article which contains
a Control: header field, so I believe a Path: header field should be
added in the sample.

--

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« -- Du potage : c'est tout ce que le cuisinier a pu faire !
  -- Ce blocus devient très horripilant !
  -- Blocus, c'est ton cuisinier ? » (Astérix)
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Russ Allbery | 19 Dec 2009 21:02
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Missing Path: header in USEPRO newgroup sample


Julien ÉLIE <julien <at> trigofacile.com> writes:

> In RFC 5537 (USEPRO), the newgroup control message example (§ 5.2.1.1)
> does not have the mandatory Path: header field.  It is only a
> proto-article here.

> A control message is defined in § 5 as an article which contains a
> Control: header field, so I believe a Path: header field should be added
> in the sample.

Yes, you're right.  That's probably worth an erratum.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Julien ÉLIE | 22 Dec 2009 20:38
Favicon

Tr: WG Review: Internationalized Resource Identifiers (iri)


Hi,

Don't we have to do something for news: and nntp: as for
internationalized resource identifiers?
It would be about internationalized newsgroup names...

Julien

> Internationalized Resource Identifiers (iri)
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> Description of Working Group:
> 
> This working group will produce
> * A new version of RFC 3987: "Internationalized Resource
> Identifiers (IRIs)" using draft-duerst-iri-bis as the base
> * A new version of RFC 4395: "Guidelines and Registration
> Procedures for New URI Schemes"
> 
> The new version of RFC 3987 may be split into separate documents,
> if, in the opinion of the chair(s), it would facilitate distribution
> of the workload and allow more focused reviews. For example, the
> following breakdown has been suggested:
> 
> * Handling of Internationalized domain names in IRIs (BCP)
> * Internationalization Considerations in IRIs (guidelines
> for BIDI, character ranges to avoid, special considerations) (BCP)
> * Syntax, parsing, comparison of IRIs (Standards track)
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Julien ÉLIE | 23 Dec 2009 17:25
Favicon

Number of occurrences of headers


Hi,

I am currently adding support for the new header fields defined in RFC 5536
and 5537 in INN.

As far as I understand, every field defined in these RFCs can be used
0 or 1 time in an article, except for Comments: and Original-Sender:
which can be used an unlimited number of times.

Regarding Original-Sender:, isn't one time enough?

--

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Être en vacances, c'est n'avoir rien à faire et avoir
  toute la journée pour le faire. » (Robert Orben)
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Russ Allbery | 23 Dec 2009 20:13
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Number of occurrences of headers


Julien ÉLIE <julien <at> trigofacile.com> writes:

> I am currently adding support for the new header fields defined in RFC 5536
> and 5537 in INN.

> As far as I understand, every field defined in these RFCs can be used 0
> or 1 time in an article, except for Comments: and Original-Sender:
> which can be used an unlimited number of times.

I haven't checked RFC 5322 for the headers defined there, but that sounds
right.

> Regarding Original-Sender:, isn't one time enough?

Normally, yes, but it wouldn't be in pathological gatewaying situations
where an article was gatewayed multiple times.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
RFC Errata System | 28 Dec 2009 13:10
Favicon

[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5536 (1979)


The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5536,
"Netnews Article Format".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5536&eid=1979

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah <at> TR-Sys.de>

Section: 3.2.7

Original Text
-------------
... in the 2nd paragraph:

   However, software that predates this standard does not use this
|  header, and therefore agents MUST accept articles without the
   Injection-Date header field.

Corrected Text
--------------
   However, software that predates this standard does not use this
|  header field, and therefore agents MUST accept articles without the
   Injection-Date header field.

Notes
-----
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
RFC Errata System | 28 Dec 2009 13:59
Favicon

[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1980)


The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5537,
"Netnews Architecture and Protocols".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5537&eid=1980

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah <at> TR-Sys.de>

Section: GLOBAL

Original Text
-------------
(a)  Section 3.1, last paragraph:

|        ... trace headers ...

(b)  Section 3.4.4, second paragraph:

|        ... a References header, ...

(c)  Section 3.5, numbered processing steps:

    4.  [...]
                                           ... in the Newsgroups
|       header is valid.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
RFC Errata System | 28 Dec 2009 14:09
Favicon

[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1982)


The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5537,
"Netnews Architecture and Protocols".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5537&eid=1982

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah <at> TR-Sys.de>

Section: 3.4.2, NOTE

Original Text
-------------
       ... unintended repeat injection into the same network, ...
                           ^

Corrected Text
--------------
       ... unintended repeated injection into the same network, ...
                           ^^^

Notes
-----

Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane