Usenet Article Standard Update (usefor) --------------------------------------- Charter Last Modified: 2007-02-13 Current Status: Active Working Group Chair(s): Alexey Melnikov Harald Alvestrand Applications Area Director(s): Chris Newman Lisa Dusseault Alexey Melnikov Applications Area Advisor: Lisa Dusseault Editor(s): Charles Lindsey Ken Murchison Mailing Lists: General Discussion:ietf-usefor@imc.org To Subscribe: ietf-usefor-request@imc.org In Body: 'subscribe' in the body of the message Archive: http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/index.html Description of Working Group: Note: A charter rewrite/update is underway. Motivation The Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages, defined in RFC 1036, was released in December 1987. This RFC defines the format that format that 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( "Son of RFC 1036" ) was released by Henry Spencer in June 1994 but this was not further pursued and is now itself out of date.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( "Son of RFC 1036" ) was released by Henry Spencer in June 1994 but this was not further pursued and is now itself out of date.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: Done Publish USEFOR -00 Done Publish USEPRO -00 Done Publish USEFOR -01 (merged version) Done Last Call USEFOR Jan 2005 Last Call USEPRO Mar 2005 Last Call USEAGE Apr 2005 ReCharter or conclude Internet-Drafts: Posted Revised I-D Title ------ ------- -------------------------------------------- Jul 2004 Jan 2007 Netnews Article Format Aug 2004 Mar 2009 Netnews Architecture and Protocols Request For Comments: None to date.