RE: ietf-nntp Feedback on the 9/3 nntpext.

["Larry Osterman (Exchange)" <[e-mail]>]

	>         ****
	>         If we change this wording, I'm concerned that clients
may expect
	> that article numbers are monotonicly increasing, instead of
strictly
	> increasing.  This becomes relevant if a message arrives, and
is then
	> canceled, a client may be confused when it sees a hole in the
article
	> id's.

	But "first unused" could be read so as to include numbers
available
	lower than the high water mark.
	****
	Very good point.  I'm wondering if some wording along the lines
of IMAPs wording for UID's might be appropriate?  Basically IMAP UID's
and NNTP article ID's are semantically identical, so we might be able to
steal some unambiguous language from IMAP to help resolve the issue?



	--brian