Subject: Fwd: ISSUE: Checkgroups control messages

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:04:22 -0700

Forwarding by request, since Julien's mail isn't making it through
moderation of the list.

From: Julien ÉLIE <[email-masked]>
To: "Russ Allbery" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Tr: ISSUE: Checkgroups control messages
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:02:11 +0200

Hi,

I see a few issues about checkgroups (section 5.2.3):

* If I have a hierarchy like this one:

    fr.bienvenue
    fr.test

and if another administrator is in charge of the sub-hierarchy
fr.autres, with for instance:

    fr.autres
    fr.autres.fiction
    fr.autres.histoires

how can he specify in the Control: header that his checkgroups
contains fr.autres?

    Control: checkgroups fr.autres #1

means fr.autres.* and does not create fr.autres (which I do not
want in my own hierarchy).

It looks that USEPRO implicitely considers that the top-level
of a hierarchy (and also a sub-hierarchy) cannot be a valid
newsgroup. (Anyway, I cannot make "fr" be a newsgroup at all
with that system.)

* I read:

    The <chksernr> argument may be any positive integer.

Could it be better specified what should look like this integer?
Especially, why not suggest something like DNS serial numbers
#2008090701?  Why not limit the size of this integer (32 bits?)
Suppose that I put a 448-digit number, I am not sure news servers
will manage to save it and compare it with the next one.

* I read:

    If provided, news servers SHOULD remember the <chksernr>
    value of the previous checkgroups control message honored for
    a particular hierarchy or sub-hierarchy.

What happens if not provided for a given checkgroups whereas previous
ones for the same hierarchy had been provided?  Should it be honoured?

According to the wording, two separate counters must be used, right?
One for "fr" and another one for "fr.autres" (sub-)hierarchies.

I reckon that a means should be provided to allow a hierarchy
administrator to change his counter.  For instance if he does not want
to use it any longer (therefore, he wants to reset it to a null value)
or if he made a mistake and provided a too huge number (therefore, he
wants to reset it to #1 or a DNS serial number).

Note:  Adam H. Kerman also raised a few concerns about checkgroups here:
         http://groups.google.fr/group/news.admin.hierarchies/msg/f3c314b07f296bd3
         http://groups.google.fr/group/news.admin.hierarchies/msg/43cd4bcc8907f6db

but I am not talking about them here.

There is also "and should not be honored" where "SHOULD" should be used,
shouldn't it?

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« I think it's a new feature.  Don't tell anyone it was an accident. » (Larry Wall)

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:08:05 GMT

>want in my own hierarchy).

That is correct. I think the term "sub-hiererchy" is defined as a set of
groups with a common prefix (ending in '.'), and so does not include its
own root. So it would be up to the administrator of fr.* to include
"fr.autres" in HIS checkgroups.

The chkscope parameter was invented for the benefit of the de.alt.*
hierachy (which is used as an example in our draft). I don't think the
individual group de.alt actually exists, but the wording surrounding that
example seems to confirm my interpretation.

>newsgroup. (Anyway, I cannot make "fr" be a newsgroup at all

No, there is nothing impossible about a group whose name is the name of a
sub-hierarchy, though there was a time when admins used to insist that your
top-level subgroup should be known as fr.autres.misc. But that rule has
been broken many times since those days.

>will manage to save it and compare it with the next one.

I wouldn't want to specify its format any further, but we might insist
that the integer should be less that 32768, or somesuch.

>ones for the same hierarchy had been provided?  Should it be honoured?

NO.

>One for "fr" and another one for "fr.autres" (sub-)hierarchies.

Yes.

>administrator to change his counter....

-1

>There is also "and should not be honored" where "SHOULD" should be used,

+1

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:11:56 -0700

"Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[email-masked]> writes:

Examples intentionally don't use RFC 2119 language because they're not
normative.  (The constraint is already stated elsewhere with SHOULD.)

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:16:26 GMT

>normative.  (The constraint is already stated elsewhere with SHOULD.)

OK

s/+1/+0/