Subject: Conclusion and summary of responses, opinion poll #1416

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:40:16 +0200

It's still a few hours early, but it's a convenient time....

ALTERNATIVE A:

+            <t>If the proto-article already had an Injection-Date header
+            field, it MUST NOT be modified or replaced.  Otherwise,
+            the injecting agent MUST add an Injection-Date header field
+            containing the current date and time.</t>

Stanley
Charles Lindsey
Frank Ellermann

ALTERNATIVE B:

+            <t>If the proto-article already had an Injection-Date header
+            field, it MUST NOT be modified or replaced.  If the
+            proto-article had both a Message-ID header field and a Date
+            header field, an Injection-Date header field MUST NOT be
+            added, since the proto-article may have been multiply injected
+            by a posting agent that predates this standard.  Otherwise,
+            the injecting agent MUST add an Injection-Date header field
+            containing the current date and time.</t>

Forrest J. Cavalier
Russ Allbery
Thorfinn
Dan Schlitt

ALTERNATIVE C:

-            <t>The injecting agent MUST then add an Injection-Date header
-            field containing the current date and time.</t>

Richard Clayton

Some people gave a ranking of alternatives:

Stanley: A, C, B
Frank: A, C, B
Richard: C, A, B

CONCLUSIONS
==========

There isn't a single opinion that has the consensus of the group, or 
even a clear majority opinion.

Nonetheless, it's clear that the option of leaving the text that was in 
the -10 draft (alternative C) definitely does not have the support of 
the group as a first alternative.

Thus, it's a matter of picking one change to do.

I'm hereby instructing the editor to proceed based on alternative B, and 
produce an -11 version incorporating this text (and the other changes 
from the August 4 delta set).

                          Harald Alvestrand, speaking as chair.