Re: ietf-nntp New draft available

[Paul Overell <[e-mail]>]

In article <[e-mail]>, "Clive D.W. Feather"
<[e-mail]> writes
>
>>> Section 12.4 page 28: change "6 digits" to "6 or 8 digits". Change the last
>>> sentence of the same paragraph to:
>>>     If the first two digits of the year are not specified, the year is
>>>     taken to be in the range 1951 to 2050 inclusive.
>> 
>> I agree with the first change. Why the second one? Is there something
>> unclear about the text as written? If so, please be more specific about
>> this.
>
>It seems a lot simpler than the wording you had, that's all; why bother
>with all this "closest century" stuff ? And it handles the case of 50
>better. But in fact, I'd change the range to be 1981 to 2080, or something
>like that.
>

With the original RFC977 wording there is no need to change to 4 digit
years at all!  "Closest century" means that the interpretation of two
digit years is always relative to when the NEWNEWS or NEWGROUPS command
is issued.  So in 2081 the two digit year 81 will be correctly
interpreted as 2081.  

Your wording will break this in that in 2081 the two digit year 81 would
be interpreted as 1981.

I should worry :)

-- 
Paul Overell                                        T U R N P I K E  Ltd