Re: ietf-nntp New wording on article numbers

[Jack De Winter <[e-mail]>]

At 02:49 AM 12/28/96 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>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.

Can you give us a legitimate example of when the last article number
might be less than the first number?  If so, is this a good idea?

>>     * 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?

I agree here.  However, once again, my concern is will an article
getting replaced ever occur, and if so, is it a good idea?  This would
possibly mean that an article was deleted, and a possibly different
one would be taking its place.  I thought that we were assigning new
article numbers to new posts, not reusing old ones.

>>     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.

Agreed here... and I have seen that happen today.  However, if we
enforce the 'new articles must use new article numbers above the
range that has been used', it reduces the scope.  In that case, a
cancel message would be the only thing that would trounce on the
message, or possibly and expires header.

>>                     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.

As I have mentioned before, I thought that we were always using new
article numbers and never reusing older article numbers.  I wouldn't
mind it if there was some way to nicely state that the article was
new and to handle that, but I really would hate to write client software
that would have to go back and check everything that I think is read
simply because there is an off chance that someone replaced an article.

regards,
Jack
-------------------------------------------------
Jack De Winter - Wildbear Consulting, Inc.
[phone]		http://www.wildbear.on.ca/

Author of SLMail(95/NT) (http://www.seattlelab.com/) and other great products.