Re: ietf-nntp Comments on the draft

[Ben Polk <[e-mail]>]

At 10:04 AM 10/2/96 CDT, Stan Barber wrote:

>I didn't include any examples. I do intend to include some, but I want to 
>know if they should be in a section all on their own (like RFC 977) or
>mixed in with each command to show how it is used. What do people think?
>Also, what about the format? Should the one used in RFC 977 be used here?

I liked the format in 977.  I think putting them together in the
end is better because you can show collections of commands as
they are actually used.

>I used the tactic from RFC 977 concerning ARTICLE, STAT, HEAD, and BODY.
>Should I change that so that each is discussed individually?

I don't have a problem with the way it is now.

>I also didn't include a section that lists all the keywords and all the
>response codes together. Is that useful? 

It would be good to have an authoritative list of response codes.

>I thought about including more information about how the "current group
pointer"
>and "current article pointer" work to make it easier for first time 
>implementors to implement NNTP. Is that useful? Or, should that be something
>in another document?

Is it ambiguous?  I haven't heard about problems in this regard due
to broken server implementations, so I'd guess adding more language
here isn't needed.