Re: ietf-nntp New wording on article numbers

[Jon Ribbens <[e-mail]>]

Robert Elz wrote:
>     This is wrong. The last article number may quite possibly be less than
>     that from a previous response for that group. The last article number
>     is the highest number corresponding to a currently available
>     article - it is *not* the high-water-mark. If there are articles
>     2, 3 and 4, then the highest article number is 4. Subsequently
>     article 4 may be cancelled, and then the GROUP command must return
>     3 as the highest available article.
> 
> This can't possibly be right, article number 4 can't be used again,
> or readers that have read it before it was cancelled would never
> see it's replacement.

I think you've misread both Clive's original article, and my reply.
The part we're talking about has nothing to do with backfilling.
I didn't say article 4 may be used again. Extending the example
used above, the next article to come in would be numbered 5, and
then the GROUP command must return 5 as the highest available
article. However, until that happens, article 3 is the highest
available number.

>  The GROUP command isn't intend to give any
> kind of authoritative statement about which articles actually exist,
> just what the relevant range of numbers is to look in - any of the
> articles in the range (including the lower and upper bounds) might
> be missing when requested specifically.

Indeed, however Clive's wording doesn't just *allow* the
numbers to be inaccurate guesses, it *requires* them to be
inaccurate guesses, even if the news server can do better.

The given wording makes INN non-compliant. In my book
that's good enough to make them worth a second look.

> I totally agree with the original wording, numbers reported must
> never go backwards.

I disagree ;-).

Cheers


Jon
____
\  //    Jon Ribbens    // 10MB virtual-hosted // www.oaktree.co.uk
 \// [e-mail] // web space for 49UKP //