Re: ietf-nntp New wording on article numbers

[Jon Ribbens <[e-mail]>]

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>     The last article number MIGHT be less than the first article number. In

I don't think that MIGHT should be in capitals.

>     * articles may be reinstated in the group with the same article number,
>       but those articles MUST have numbers no less than the first article
>       number in the response;

There's a lot of wording taken up with this eventuality. I don't
see the need to document it. Do you see a need for this to happen
in practice? What difference does it actually make to NNTP clients?

>     When a subsequent GROUP command for the same newsgroup is issued, either
>     by the same client or a different client, the first and last article
>     numbers MUST be no less than those in the previous response for that
>     newsgroup.

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.

>                     A previously invalid article number might become valid
>     if the article has been reinstated, but such an article number MUST be
>     no less than the "first" article number specified in the most recent
>     response to a GROUP command for that group.

As mentioned above, I think this is unnecessary. 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. Nearly all
clients are going to miss the newly-reinstated article anyway.

Cheers


Jon
____
\  //    Jon Ribbens    //
 \// [e-mail] //