Subject: Opinion poll: #1416 When to add Injection-Date

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:01:48 +0200

OK, time to close this one (hopefully).

Taking the deltas posted by Russ Allbery on August 4, 2008 at 01:37 my 
time as a starting point, I think we are down to one essential 
statement, which goes in bullet 11 of section 3.5 of 
draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-10:

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>

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>

ALTERNATIVE C:

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

I believe the other diffs are either uncontroversial (they are the terminology change from "reinjection" to "multiple injection") or are obvious how to change once we get this one settled.

I think I could easily infer some people's opinion from the postings already made, but let's make the call explicit.

So in order to see if we have a strongly held position in the group, please reply to this message with ONE of the following statements:

* I prefer Alternative A
* I prefer Alternative B
* I prefer Alternative C
* I have another opinion, which is.....

If you want to say anything EXCEPT state your preference, please change the subject line, and DO NOT reply to other people's statement of their opinion.

I'll give this one week (until Monday, August 11, 2008, 12 noon UTC), and then tally responses.

                       Harald

---

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:30:07 -0400

I prefer Alternative B, which is the text Russ has written.

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:59:39 -0700

I prefer alternative B.

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

---

From: Thorfinn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:15:07 +1000

On 12 Aug 2008, at 00:01, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Taking the deltas posted by Russ Allbery on August 4, 2008 at 01:37  
> my time as a starting point, I think we are down to one essential  
> statement, which goes in bullet 11 of section 3.5 of draft-ietf- 
> usefor-usepro-10:

* I prefer Alternative B

-- 
<a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn/">[email-masked]</a>
~/ For those who've come across the seas, ~/ We've boundless plains to  
share, ~/
~/   With courage let us all combine,     ~/    To Advance Australia  
Fair.    ~/
      -- The end of the second verse of the Australian National  
Anthem. --

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:35:50 +0200

> and then tally responses. 
As Stanley rightly commented, one week from yesterday is August 18, not 
August 11. Sorry about the error.

                    Harald

---

From: Dan Schlitt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:19:16 -0400

I favor alternative B.

After listening to the discussion of this item over the years I feel
this will best serve the intended purpose.

/dan

-- 

Dan Schlitt
[email-masked]

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:30:26 GMT

>* I prefer Alternative A

Alternative C would lead to all sorts of problems which we discussed way back.

Alternative B avoids the one rather improbably scenario which I have
described elsewhere, but brings other disadvantages.

-- 
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: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:50:18 +0200

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> please reply to this message with ONE of the following statements:
 
> * I have another opinion, which is.....

...a slight preference for A before C before B.

 Frank

---

From: Richard Clayton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 07:58:45 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, Harald Alvestrand
<[email-masked]> writes

>-            field containing the current date and time.</t>

My view (albeit weakly held) is that header fields are either added by
servers (vaguely trusted) or by clients (not trusted in the slightest)

This header field is clearly meant to be added by a server, so it should
be added by a server and not by a client under any circumstances ... so
I prefer C  (then A then B)

I cannot get excited about multiple injection, this is exotic and so the
people doing it can look out for themselves.

I cannot get excited about ancient articles reappearing after days in
the wilderness. Propagation time across the active parts of Usenet is
generally measured in seconds except when queues build up.. and there is
some attempt to avoid that...

I cannot get excited about servers that look at Dates to decide when to
expire things -- the trend is to hold the last <n> that arrived (why
trust someone else to tell the truth). Apart from anything else, if you
delete in FIFO order it simplifies your filing system.

>So in order to see if we have a strongly held position in the group, please 
>reply to this message with ONE of the following statements:
>
>* I prefer Alternative A
>* I prefer Alternative B
>* I prefer Alternative C

I think the decision should be all about trust issues, not about
duplication or over/under-enthusiastic expiry.  But trust is so weak on
Usenet, I don't mind being ignored !

- -- 
richard @ highwayman . com                       "Nothing seems the same
                          Still you never see the change from day to day
                                And no-one notices the customs slip away"

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:54:19 GMT

>I prefer C  (then A then B)

I think the problem with C is that it permits to override a previously
present Injection-Date (which can arise due to all sorts of strange
scenarios including loops involving exotic gatewaying, and possibly
leading to the continuation of those loops).

So if some guy has already put an Injection-Date header there (for
whatever reason, good or bad) then he is saying, in effect, "the clock for
deciding when to expire this article has already started ticking". In
which case he has only himself to blame if his action causes some
premature expiry because he did it wrong.

---

From: Ralph Babel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:34:50 +0200 (CEST)

Richard Clayton wrote:

> I think the decision should be all about trust issues,
> not about duplication or over/under-enthusiastic expiry.

If headers generated elsewhere cannot be trusted
anyhow, and if servers are to rely on their own data
instead (e.g. an article's arrival date), this pretty
much implies that "Injection-Date:" is useless.

Gee, a severe case of deja vu, it seems.

> But trust is so weak on Usenet, I don't mind being ignored !

Welcome to the club!