Re: ietf-nntp Issue: reinstatement

[Jon Ribbens <[e-mail]>]

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Jon Ribbens:
> > There's a lot of wording taken up with this eventuality. I don't
> > see the need to document it.
> 
> If it's allowed, then we need to include enough wording to describe the
> implications, even if it's rare. If it's forbidden, we should say so, so that
> client authors can rely on the fact.

My impression is that it just doesn't matter. If you don't mention it,
then nothing bad will happen. I don't think it is necessary for
news clients to notice the reinstated article - it's there if they
specifically go looking for it, but it doesn't matter if the software
doesn't notice it as a new article. Since the worst that can happen
if the news software doesn't cope with the reinstatement is just
that - the article isn't noticed - why bother mentioning it?

> > Even if you do want
> > this stuff in, I don't see a need for the condition that the article
> > number MUST be no less than the first article number.
> 
> Without that condition, the low water mark might decrease. Everyone was
> against that.

The only bad thing that might happen here is that some software
might think the article numbers have been reset. I suppose it's
best to keep this condition.

Cheers


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