2.1.26 Usenet Article Standard Update (usefor) *

This Working Group Did Not Meet

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 40th IETF Meeting in Washington, DC. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 02-Dec-97

Chair(s):

Simon Lyall <simon@darkmere.gen.nz>

Applications Area Director(s):

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Harald Alvestrand <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>

Applications Area Advisor:

Harald Alvestrand <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion:usenet-format@clari.net
To Subscribe: usenet-format-request@clari.net
In Body: subscribe your.email.address in Subject field
Archive: http://www.landfield.com/usefor/

Description of Working Group:

Motivation

The Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages, defined in RFC 1036, was released in December 1987. This RFC defines the format that formats which all usenet articles must follow (similar to the way RFC 822 does for email) and also covers the algorithm that is used to distribute usenet articles. Since that time there has been no official update published despite the rapid growth in Usenet and other networks that use the RFC 1036 article format.

A draft update to RFC 1036 ( "Son of RFC 1036" ) was released by Henry Spencer in June 1994 but this was not further pursued and is now itself out of date. Currently a combination of this and RFC 1036 are regarded as the de-facto standard.

At the present time an urgent need has been identified to formalize and document many of the current and proposed extensions to the Usenet Article format. Many extensions are only vaguely documented and have competing and overlapping alternatives. A draft update to RFC 1036 ( "Son of RFC 1036" ) was released by Henry Spencer in June 1994 but this was not further pursued and is now itself out of date. Currently a combination of this and RFC 1036 are regarded as the de-facto standard.

At the present time an urgent need has been identified to formalize and document many of the current and proposed extensions to the Usenet Article format. Many extensions are only vaguely documented and have competing and overlapping alternatives.

In particular the following areas need urgent attention:

- Standards for the signing of articles (sign-control and PGP-MOOSE) - Authentication of cancels. - Use of non-ASCII character sets in article headers and bodies - Standardization of article bodies and the use of MIME in articles. - Standardization and extension of 3rd party control messages affecting articles (NOCEM) - General revision of various limits (eg article size) listed in previous standards.

and many other aspects of the standards need reviewing.

Description

The Goal of this working group is to publish a standards-track successor to RFC 1036 that with particular attention to backward compatibility, formalizes best current practice and best proposed practice. The Group shall also aid and/or oversee the production of other Usenet related Internet Drafts and Standards.

The Working Group shall:

1. Produce an Internet Draft (or series of drafts) that describes the core standards for a Usenet article and the features that all Usenet software should take account of.

2. Produce a group of Internet Drafts formally describing extensions to the core standard for a Usenet article (see above).

3. Produce a further Internet Draft that incorporates the core standard for a Usenet article (see 1) plus all those extensions (see 2) that the working group believe should become part of a final standard.

4. Publish a standards-track successor to RFC 1036 that formalizes best current practice and best proposed practice.

5. Publish any other extensions to the Usenet Article Standard that warrant being formal extensions but are outside the scope of the main standard.

Goals and Milestones:

Nov 97

  

Identify areas where extensions are required and write I-D on minimum standards

Dec 97

  

Revise Internet-Draft of minimum standard

Feb 98

  

Produce a revised internet-draft of the Usenet Article Standard incorporating the minimum standard and extensions produced above.

Jun 98

  

Submit the revised Usenet Article Standard to the IESG for Proposed Standard status.

Jul 98

  

Submit to the IESG any extensions to the Usenet Article Standard for Proposed Standard status.

No Current Internet-Drafts
No Request For Comments

Previous PageNext Page