Re: ietf-nntp New draft available

[Stan Barber <[e-mail]>]

> The extended syntax of NEWNEWS and NEWGROUPS are incompatible in so far
> that a client issuing 4 digit years will not work with a server that
> conforms to RFC977.  I am not saying that this is a bad thing, just that
> it needs specifying.  New RFC977bis clients will need to be aware of
> this if they are to interwork with old RFC977 servers. 

I see your point. I will give this some thought for a future version of 
the document.
	
> 
> >The SLAVE command did nothing in RFC 977, so I removed it. Please tell me how 
> >you use the SLAVE command. If lots of people use, we can put it back in. If
> >no one uses it, what's the point of having it in there?
> 
> Nor am I arguing for the retention of the SLAVE command.  But it is
> incompatible in that an RFC977 conforming client can expect the SLAVE
> command.  Again it needs specifying.

Ditto.

> Sorry to labour the point, but are you saying that those commands not in
> the registry are mandatory and those in the registry are optional? 

Yes. 

> At the very least change the title of 10.2.1 to
> 
> 10.2.1  ARTICLE, HEAD, BODY and STAT commands.
>
> But I would rather that it were split into individual sections, one for
> each command.  Each section giving just the semantics and responses for
> that particular command, then referencing a section on the common
> semantics of the effect on the current article pointer etc.

I am willing to change it, but I'd like to see more feedback first.

-- 
Stan   | Academ Consulting Services        |internet: [e-mail]
Olan   | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob
Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.