Subject: [MORG] search=inthread

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:27:13 +0100

That's going to be a WG draft? What's the timeframe for that?

I think the document is about ready for WGLC or IETF LC. Of course it 
can't have a WGLC if it's still individual.

I think we need to decide: Is it ready, and should it go forwards just 
after Christmas as individual, or should it go forward as a WG draft 
soonish after the WG is formally formed? I have no opinion.

Arnt
_______________________________________________
MORG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/morg
Note Well: http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html

---

From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:52:04 +0200

> That's going to be a WG draft? What's the timeframe for that?

Dunno.

> soonish after the WG is formally formed? I have no opinion.

I still see a few issues:

1. THREAD=REFS doesn't specify the thread root sorting change that I
proposed (and no one cared one way or another).

2. I think THREADROOT description should clearly and explicitly say how
to handle dummy roots. Such as "If thread root is a dummy node, its
children are returned instead."

3. Is THREAD=algo a good SEARCH return option? Perhaps THREAD (algo)
instead?

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:39:44 +0100

>>  That's going to be a WG draft? What's the timeframe for that?

Exactly.

>>  I think the document is about ready for WGLC or IETF LC. Of course 
>>  it can't have a WGLC if it's still individual.
>>
>>  I think we need to decide: Is it ready, and should it go forwards 
>>  just after Christmas as individual, or should it go forward as a WG 
>>  draft soonish after the WG is formally formed? I have no opinion.
>

I made the change after posting (when noone answered for a few days 
after my last posting I simply made the change.)

The other two are minor, IMO.

> 2. I think THREADROOT description should clearly and explicitly say 
> how to handle dummy roots. Such as "If thread root is a dummy node, 
> its children are returned instead."

Extant is a clear word and the alternatives didn't look good to me by 
the time I had eliminated both deleted children and children of extant 
messages. I'll try again.

> 3. Is THREAD=algo a good SEARCH return option? Perhaps THREAD (algo) instead?

I'll make the change if someone is strongly in favour of it and gives me 
the BNF.

Arnt

---

From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:53:11 +0200

On Dec 15, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> Extant is a clear word and the alternatives didn't look good to me  
> by the time I had eliminated both deleted children and children of  
> extant messages. I'll try again.

I think the inthread spec was the first time I had ever seen the  
"extant" word. Even though I could easily guess its meaning, I still  
don't find it all that obvious that dummy nodes aren't extant.  
Especially because it doesn't talk about extant messages, just "extant  
parent". I could easily understand it to mean "extant parent node",  
and I think a dummy node fits that definition.

Hmm. Perhaps "extant parent message" would be enough. :)