Subject: Ticket status, USEFOR WG Last Call processing

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:10:06 -0700

Here is what I have as status for the tickets:

1156 USEFOR Appendix: IANA registration forms for headers

1298 USEFOR WG LC issues raised by Charles Lindsey
  Will be resolved once 1305 is resolved

1299 USEFOR WG LC issues raised by Richard Clayton
  Suggested text is acceptable with a minor text change (don't define 
"generate" in terms of "generate"

1300 USEFOR WG LC issues raised by Ralph Babel
   Will be resolved once 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1334, 
1335, 1336 are resolved

1305 USEFOR 3.1.6 Path - NOTE to explain diag-deprecated
   Suggested text accepted.

1309 USEFOR 3.2.7 Distribution header fields need more description
  In discussion, the proper reference for ISO 3066 surfaced.
  It was suggested to change the resolution text slightly to avoid the 
term "predefined".
  Under the same ticket number, there was also discussion about 
"supersedes".

1310 USEFOR 3.2.9 Approved header field description
  Charles Lindsey disagrees with proposed text. Russ Allberry agrees.
  Resolved: The proposed text is going in.

1311 USEFOR 3.2.12 Default value for the Archive header field
  Suggested to remove the words "wish to" from the suggested resolution 
text.
  It's been pointed out that "permanent" is included in "long-term", so 
isn't needed.
  Charles has produced alternate text; I have seen no consensus that 
this is better than what
  I suggested (quite the opposite).
  I'll suggest a slightly revised text (based on mine, not charles').

1312 USEFOR 3.3.1 - Description of Lines header field can be much shorter
  Suggested text accepted. Some suggestions have been made for improving it.

1313 USEFOR 2.2 Syntax for Usenet articles: RFC 2822 + MIME
  Suggested resolution is accepted (minus quibbles from Charles).

1314 USEFOR 3.1.5 Definition of Newsgroups header field is not precise
  Suggested SHOULD NOT for all cases of use of the "reserved" characters
  Suggested that MUST accept be softened by inclusion of "subject to 
site policy"

1315 USEFOR definiont of "poster"
  "No big deal" - and no clear consensus.

1334 USEFOR path preloading and path components case sensitivity
  "No change" seems to be "no big deal". Resolved "no change".

1335 USEFOR description of Iniection-Date purpose is not precise
  Sliglhtly modified description seems adequate (what charles suggested).

1336 USEFOR 3.2.4 Additonal description of Expires header field
  Argumensts in multiple directions here.

I'll send out new resolution proposals for the stuff not completely 
resolved shortly.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:05:06 +0200

> Here is what I have as status for the tickets:

Thanks...

> 1156 USEFOR Appendix: IANA registration forms for headers

...that's rather old, was that about "we can't say 'obsolete'
for Lines" ?  Please replace it by 'obsolescent' or similar.

For four header fields I found older documents, three in
RFC 850 (not yet mentioned in the IANA chapter), one in
RFC 2980 (NNTP-Posting-Host).  If used also needed in the
informative references.

Frank

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 03:47:44 -0700

> for Lines" ?  Please replace it by 'obsolescent' or similar.
I checked the registration RFC, and it's not a completely restricted 
field - we can make up words if we have to.
That said, I don't want to do that if we don't REALLY have to.
> RFC 2980 (NNTP-Posting-Host).  If used also needed in the
Good catch - should be uncontroversial.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:16:08 +0200

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> I checked the registration RFC, and it's not a completely
> restricted field - we can make up words if we have to.

Yes, the "deprecated" in 08 should do.  When I saw "1156" I
thought that it's about "obsoleted", but that's not possible,
the status value for the Lines is already "deprecated" in 08.

Now I'm lost what else in #1156 was still unclear, maybe the
three "obsoleted" RFC 850 header fields, or should that be
"historic"... no, the RFC editor has 850 as status "unknown"
and "obsoleted by 1036".

Frank