Subject: multiple ids

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 15:43:44 -0400

---------------
The editors are directed to modify 
the phrase which starts "If multiple atom:entry elements..." as 
follows:

"If multiple atom:entry elements with the same atom:id value appear in 
an Atom Feed document, they describe the same entry and software MUST 
treat them as such."
---------------

We don't use the word 'software' in the draft. The editors request
replacement text.

Robert Sayre

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 02:11:06 -0400

Tim Bray directs the editors to insert the following words:
 "If multiple atom:entry elements with the same atom:id value appear in
 an Atom Feed document, they describe the same entry and Atom Processors
 MUST treat them as such."

	It is a long standing and valued tradition in the IETF that
Standards Track RFC's MUST NOT impose constraints on applications unless
such constraints relate to issues of interoperability. Thus, while it is
entirely appropriate for the specification to state that "multiple
atom:entry elements with the same atom:id ... describe the same entry" it is
NOT appropriate to state how Atom Processors must treat such elements. The
text should read simply:

"If multiple atom:entry elements with the same atom:id value appear in
 an Atom Feed document, they describe the same entry."

	The appropriate handling of multiple instances of the "same entry"
is a matter which is the solely up to the discretion of Atom Processors
since variances in such handling do not impact interoperablity. One can
imagine that various developers will make different decisions in duplicate
handling policies. Some processors might even allow their end-users to
decide the handling policies. By making such decisions, developers will
either enhance or detract from the utility of the overall solutions they
develop -- but, it is not up to the IETF to direct what decisions should be
made in this case.
	Restating this in a manner perhaps more friendly to those who
declare themselves as "bits on the wire" people: The specification should
specify the meaning of the bits on the wire -- not what one does with the
bits after receiving them.

		bob wyman

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 17:08:43 -0700

s/software/Atom Processors/ for consistency with the rest of the draft. 
-Tim

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 18:14:03 -0700

>  an Atom Feed document, they describe the same entry."

+1. I can live with Tim's original wording because the phrase that 
Bob removes is impossible to measure or enforce, but Bob's wording is 
cleaner for the same result.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 22:04:35 -0400

> cleaner for the same result.

+1. Bob wording is better.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 21:38:33 -0700

> +1. Bob wording is better.

I agree.  The MUST clause was inserted in response to concerns raised  
by Graham, but it seems clear that it lacks consensus support. -Tim

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:08:25 -0600

On Sunday, May 22, 2005, at 07:14  PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> +1. I can live with Tim's original wording because the phrase that Bob 
> removes is impossible to measure or enforce, but Bob's wording is 

Yeah, I like Bob's better too.  And if the word "appear" can be 
interpreted to refer to the action of first appearing, and not to the 
state of existing (having been copied from the feed where it 
"appeared")...yes, I'm totally twisting it to my liking...then 
consuming apps are free to determine for themselves whether the entries 
originated ("appeared") in the same feed and are therefore the same 
entry or whether one of them is trying to DOS the other.

...but I'd rather that we state that "If multiple atom:entry elements 
originating in the same Atom Feed (document?) have the same atom:id 
value, they describe the same entry."

We MIGHT consider omitting the word "document".  It's purpose is of 
course to speak to multiple instances of an entry within the same 
document, but the same rule applies to multiple instances appearing in 
a feed at different times.  Removing "document" would change the focus 
of the sentence, making the fact that multiple instances can appear in 
the same document less clear...or even totally unclear...so perhaps two 
sentences or something like this would be even better:

"If multiple atom:entry elements originating in the same Atom feed have 
the same atom:id value, whether they exist simultaneously in one 
document or in different instances of the feed document, they describe 
the same entry."