Subject: Re: PacePutIpAddrInEntry

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:05:42 +1000

On 1/7/04 6:38 AM, "Asbjørn Ulsberg" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I'm hoping Atom gets used for feeds of status alerts from hosts, for
>> example. In that case, an IP address or a DNS name are reasonable
>> identifiers.
> 
> Speaking of... Is there a common designation for IP addresses and DNS
> names we could use instead of 'ipaddr' or 'ip-address'? Both DNS names and
> IP addresses should be possible to use to point to a node of origin, but
> I'm not sure what name the element should have to fit both. Any ideas?

ModWiki uses <host>

    http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?ModWiki

e.

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:03:38 +0200

Sam Ruby wrote:

> I track and publish[1] IP addresses on my weblog.  It has cut down 
> significantly on "spoofing".
>
> I discussed a case[2] recently where somebody "anonymously" updated 
> the wiki.  Somebody proporting to be Bill de hÓra stepped forward and 
> claimed responsibility.  

I think the use case is strong enough to warrant inclusion of 
atom:ipaddr in the spec. But the implied meaning is wrong whether it 
appears at feed, entry or author level - it's not necessarily the IP 
address of any of these. I don't think the use case is strong enough to 
warrant extra structural elements to supply more info that way, and 
ipaddr seems the best label. Given that the primary use is to /assist/ 
in identification of the author, I think it would probably be most 
appropriate at that level. But given the inaccuracy of the intuitive 
interpretation it definitely calls for an explanatory note in  the spec 
prose - something like: "there is no guarantee of a strong association 
between the value of atom:ipaddr and the author of the entry".

> Truth be told, I personally trust the ip addresses information more 
> than the SMTP headers.

There are politicians I could say the same about.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

Raw
http://dannyayers.com

---

From: "Andreas Sewe" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 13:46:22 +0200

Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

> I'm not sure what name the element should     have to fit both. Any ideas?

What about 'host', the DNS name being the host name, the IP address its
address? And it's a single word, so one doesn't have to argue about the case
convention to use. ;-)

Regards,

Andreas Sewe

---

From: Ken MacLeod <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 Jul 2004 10:01:44 -0500

Mark Pilgrim <[email-masked]> writes:

> I am in favor of atom:author:ipaddr in the core spec, because it
> would be immediately useful to a known class of existing
> Atom-enabled implementations, including our own wiki.

Given the proposal that this will be a core element that we will test
interoperability on, the test case for this element will go something
along the following lines, correct?

    Fully populated Person construct

        <author>
            <name>Jane Doe</name>
            <email>[email-masked]</name>
            <url>http://example.com/</url>
            <ipaddr>10.0.0.1</ipaddr>
        </author>

        If the consumer supports atom:ipaddr display when other Person
        construct elements are present, atom:ipaddr 10.0.0.1 will be
        displayed.

    Person construct only containing atom:ipaddr

        <author>
            <ipaddr>10.0.0.1</ipaddr>
        </author>

        If the consumer supports display of atom:ipaddr, atom:ipaddr
        10.0.0.1 will be displayed as the only author-identifying
        information.

Test results here are "pass", "fail", and "not applicable".  Note
additional test cases for IPv6 and improperly formed values.

Note: I wavered on whether the consumer processing requirements were
"must display" or "should display" and picked "should display" which
explains the wording of "if ... supports" above.  If the processing
requirement is "must display", the wording would change accordingly.
Note that it is possible that the first case could be "should display"
even if the second case were "must display [in absense of ...]".

  -- Ken

---

From: Ken MacLeod <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 Jul 2004 10:15:35 -0500

Sam Ruby <[email-masked]> writes:

> I track and publish IP addresses on my weblog.  It has cut down
> I discussed a case recently where somebody "anonymously" updated the
> wiki.  Somebody proporting to be Bill de hÓra stepped forward and
> claimed responsibility.  Truth be told, I personally trust the ip
> addresses information more than the SMTP headers.

I recognize the use case for why hosts should have this information
and make it available on their site for these purposes.

Could you please confirm that the requirement being stated here is
explicitly for the purpose of enabling consumers to display this
information (for similar purposes that the host does)?

This would be separate from a use case for using core Atom format for
archiving this information.

  -- Ken

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:01:25 -0600

> ipaddr seems the best label. Given that the primary use is to /assist/ 

Perhaps using a term like "origin-ip-addr" instead would be better in this 
case? The reasoning is that the element is being used to identify the 
network address where the entry originated. 

> appropriate at that level. But given the inaccuracy of the intuitive 

+1 on the ip-addr being on the author level.

> There are politicians I could say the same about.

- James M Snell
  [email-masked]
  http://www.ibm.com
  (877) 511-5082 / Office
  930-1979 / Tie Line

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:04:20 +0200

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:05:42 +1000, Eric Scheid  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> names we could use instead of 'ipaddr' or 'ip-address'?
>
> ModWiki uses <host>

+1 on <host>, then. It might be a bit ambiguous, or at least somewhat hard  
to understand, but what it's for will be written in the spec., so it's no  
big issue. <host> is at least better than both <ipaddr> and <ip-address>,  
imho.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 08:54:07 +0900

>big issue. <host> is at least better than both <ipaddr> and <ip-address>,

Please check RFC 2396 and RFC 2396bis. The URI spec has exactly
the same problem, and has solved some things already that
you might want to include (futureproofing for IP versions,...).
The name is only a syntax production, so it probably has not
received as much thought as an XML element, or was choosen
to distinguish from other syntax productions.

Regards,   Martin.