Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Usenet spec in IETF last call
From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
To: Applications Review List <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:00:26 +0100
List-Id: Applications Review List <apps-review.ietf.org>

On Fri Sep 29 00:07:05 2006, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> I wasn't going to send this around to Apps-review, as it's a 
> revision  and not in "architectural" development stage.  However, 
> already in  last call, Mark Crispin has raised questions about both 
> supersetting  and subsetting RFC2822.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-10.txt
> 
> Anybody agree/disagree with those concerns?

I sympathize with them, certainly, but it appears that the additional 
restrictions and altered definitions applied to USENET message are, 
essentially, a regrettable product of the deployed software. In other 
words, this is not an updated specification for people to implement, 
this is an updated documentation describing a largely unwritten 
specification - warts and all.

To try and enforce full RFC2822 syntax would be trying to close the 
barn door after the horse has not only bolted, but was never even in 
the stable in the first place.

However, that said, there are a couple of things which concern me.

While I understand the issues surrounding the redefinitions, the 
language used to require agents to accept "full RFC2822" syntax is 
often quite weak. Consider the requirement for a SP after header 
field names, for example - I appreciate that agents MUST generate at 
least one space, but I feel that for future convergence, it would be 
useful to also specify that they MUST accept no SP. This document 
merely uses MAY.

This is repeated in several areas. I realize there is a desire to 
avoid effectively declaring existing implementations non-conformant, 
but by weakening the ability for USEFOR and RFC2822 to converge, it 
renders this document somewhat more of a BCP than a PS.

To torture a metaphor further, it's akin to closing the barn door 
before the horse has even gone into the stable.

I think it would benefit USENET generally to specify that agents 
SHOULD accept full RFC2822 syntax, even if they MUST generate 
restricted syntax in order to interoperate.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

_______________________________________________
APPS-REVIEW mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review

To: [email-masked]
From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:07:05 -0700
Cc: 
Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Usenet spec in IETF last call

I wasn't going to send this around to Apps-review, as it's a revision  
and not in "architectural" development stage.  However, already in  
last call, Mark Crispin has raised questions about both supersetting  
and subsetting RFC2822.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-10.txt

Anybody agree/disagree with those concerns?

thx,
Lisa

_______________________________________________
APPS-REVIEW mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review

To: [email-masked]
From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:06:59 -0700
Cc: 
Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Fwd: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-atompub-protocol

--===============1136862347==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-10--435007110

--Apple-Mail-10--435007110
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed

I'd like to get a review of this document, it's an important one with  
an all new standard for blog publishing, based on HTTP.  I suggested  
the chairs request an APPS-review before WGLC but obviously it's too  
late for that timing to work out.

thanks!
Lisa

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
> Date: September 14, 2006 10:13:13 AM PDT
> To: Atom WG <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Cc: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-atompub-protocol
>
>
> With the publication of draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-10.txt, we are  
> ready for WG Last Call. This is a two-week period where people look  
> intently at the document and comment on it.  New Paces are still  
> allowed, and are encouraged if you are proposing anything more than  
> a few sentences worth of change.
> At the end of the Last Call, we grind out one last revision, and  
> the WG passes it on to our fearless AD to take it to the IETF as a  
> whole.
>
> The WG Last Call will close September 26.
>
> Please remember to make your subject lines meaningful when you  
> start threads, and when you change the topic. Thanks!
>

--Apple-Mail-10--435007110
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=ISO-8859-1

<HTML><BODY style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; =
-khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">I'd like to get a review of this =
document, it's an important one with an all new standard for blog =
publishing, based on HTTP.=A0 I suggested the chairs request an =
APPS-review before WGLC but obviously it's too late for that timing to =
work out.<DIV><BR =
class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>thanks!</DIV><DIV>Lisa<BR><DI=
V><BR><DIV>Begin forwarded message:</DIV><BR =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; "><FONT face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" color=3D"#000000" =
style=3D"font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><B>From: =
</B></FONT><FONT face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" style=3D"font: 12.0px =
Helvetica">Paul Hoffman &lt;<A =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt;</FONT></DIV><DIV=
 style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; "><FONT face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" color=3D"#000000" =
style=3D"font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><B>Date: =
</B></FONT><FONT face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" style=3D"font: 12.0px =
Helvetica">September 14, 2006 10:13:13 AM PDT</FONT></DIV><DIV =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; "><FONT face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" color=3D"#000000" =
style=3D"font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><B>To: </B></FONT><FONT =
face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" style=3D"font: 12.0px Helvetica">Atom WG =
&lt;<A href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt;, =
<A =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A></FONT></DI=
V><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; "><FONT face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" color=3D"#000000" =
style=3D"font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><B>Cc: </B></FONT><FONT =
face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" style=3D"font: 12.0px Helvetica">Tim Bray =
&lt;<A =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt;</FONT></=
DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: =
0px; margin-left: 0px; "><FONT face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" =
color=3D"#000000" style=3D"font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: =
#000000"><B>Subject: </B></FONT><FONT face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" =
style=3D"font: 12.0px Helvetica"><B>WG Last Call for =
draft-ietf-atompub-protocol</B></FONT></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: =
0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; =
min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV> <DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; =
margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: =
14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; =
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">With the publication of =
draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-10.txt, we are ready for WG Last Call. This =
is a two-week period where people look intently at the document and =
comment on it.<SPAN class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0 </SPAN>New Paces =
are still allowed, and are encouraged if you are proposing anything more =
than a few sentences worth of change. <SPAN =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</SPAN></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: =
0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">At the =
end of the Last Call, we grind out one last revision, and the WG passes =
it on to our fearless AD to take it to the IETF as a whole.</DIV><DIV =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: =
0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The WG =
Last Call will close September 26.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; =
margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: =
14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; =
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Please remember to make your =
subject lines meaningful when you start threads, and when you change the =
topic. Thanks!</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; =
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV> =
</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>=

--Apple-Mail-10--435007110--

--===============1136862347==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
APPS-REVIEW mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review

--===============1136862347==--

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:55:37 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt
Mail-Followup-To: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

Some notes from a very quick read (you'll want to complement this
with another review):

- What's the relationship between licensing information contained in
  a license-type link and licensing information contained in an
  atom:rights element?

  The example under 2.1 in the I-D suggests that the atom:rights is
  expected to reflect the license that is identified in the link
  element.  However, there seems to be no machine-readable way to
  express that connection.
  
  Also, there can be multiple license links, but only one rights
  element.

- An atom:rights element on a feed sets the default for the
  atom:rights elements on entries; a license link on a feed,
  however, is expected to apply to the metadata and NOT to the
  entries.

  Why the difference in inheritance rules and semantics?

- It's probably worth noting that there are jurisdictions in which
  databases enjoy sui generis legal protection (e.g., the EU).  In
  such jurisdictions, it might be reasonable to have license
  information that refers to the collection, not just to its
  metadata.

- The following statement:

    Entry content might include or reference material from other
    sources. Licenses associated with an entry MUST NOT be assumed
    to cover such material.  Implementations cannot necessarily
    trust that publishers have the right to license material claimed
    to be covered by any associated license.  Care should be taken
    when making decisions based on the referenced license.

  ... takes all of the value out of this scheme.  The very point of
  annotating content (even aggregate content) with a license is that
  this license be trusted.

Summary: The relationship to atom:rigts should be cleaned up.  The
questions above about what precisely a license applies to probably
points at a problem in terms of expressivity of the linking scheme
-- an argument could be made that there should be machine-readable
ways to express what precisely a license link is supposed to apply
to. Something like rel={content-license, dataset-license,
entry-default-license}?

Overall, this document looks like it is in dire need of serious
review from legal experts -- e.g., from the Creative Commons
community.  

I'll point some contacts in that general area at the ongoing last
call.

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C   <[email-masked]>

On 2006-09-01 19:47:57 -0400, Eric Burger wrote:
> From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:47:57 -0400
> Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for
> 	draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt
> List-Id: Applications Review List <apps-review.ietf.org>
> X-Spam-Level: 
> 
> Normally I'd pull from the pool of Applications Area experts.  However, I
> haven't gotten the round-robin data base or the other accoutrements of the
> review process on line.  There is a deadline looming, so it would be good to
> just get this one done.
> 
> Please respond to me directly if you can do the review.
> 
> Document:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt
> 
> IETF LC ends: 11-Sep-2006
> 
> --
> - Eric
> 
> 
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:48:12 -0400
> To: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>, James M Snell <[email-masked]>
> Conversation: Expert review requested for
> draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt
> Subject: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> Can you assign an expert Apps reviewer for this draft:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt
> 
> It's in IETF Last Call, so end of that last call would be the
> suggested deadline (Sept 11).
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Lisa
> 
> 
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> APPS-REVIEW mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
APPS-REVIEW mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review

Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:47:57 -0400
From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt

Normally I'd pull from the pool of Applications Area experts.  However, I
haven't gotten the round-robin data base or the other accoutrements of the
review process on line.  There is a deadline looming, so it would be good to
just get this one done.

Please respond to me directly if you can do the review.

Document:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt

IETF LC ends: 11-Sep-2006

--
- Eric

------ Forwarded Message
From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:48:12 -0400
To: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>, James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Conversation: Expert review requested for
draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt
Subject: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt

Hi Eric,

Can you assign an expert Apps reviewer for this draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt

It's in IETF Last Call, so end of that last call would be the
suggested deadline (Sept 11).

Thanks!

Lisa

------ End of Forwarded Message

_______________________________________________
APPS-REVIEW mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review