Re: application/news-groupinfo in newgroup (was: Protocol changes in draft-allbery-usefor-usepro-00)

["Charles Lindsey" <[e-mail]>]

In <[e-mail]> Russ Allbery <[e-mail]> writes:

>Charles Lindsey <[e-mail]> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <[e-mail]> writes:
>>> Charles Lindsey <[e-mail]> writes:

>>>> 31. [-1] (5.2.1) Newgroup message SHOULD include application/group-info.

>Its absence may mean that no newsgroups file entry is created at all.  The
>newsgroups file is an optional feature of NNTP and need not be
>implemented, nor need the newsgroups file be accurate or complete.  See
>section 7.6.6 of RFC 3977:

>   The list MAY omit newsgroups for which the information is unavailable
>   and MAY include groups not available on the server.  The client MUST
>   NOT assume that the list is complete or that it matches the list
>   returned by LIST ACTIVE.

Hmmm! With hindsight I might have said that, where a Newsgroups file
existed, the Active file SHOULD be a subset of it. Oh well!

>Newsgroups are not required to have descriptions unless you want to send a
>checkgroups for them.  Some Netnews networks (such as the servers on which
>microsoft.* is hosted) simply don't use them.

>> Likewise for checkgroups.

In that case we need to look into checkgroups. In a hierarchy that does
not customarily bother with <newsgroup-description>s, I would expect a
checkgroups message to be of the form:

example.unmoderated.group<HTAB>
example.moderated.group<HTAB> (Moderated)

And many NNTP servers would probably keep a Newsgroups file containing
exactly that. Or at least the (Moderated) ones.

In which case I would expect a newgroup message for a moderated group to
contain an application/group-info with

example.moderated.group<HTAB> (Moderated)

so that such NNTP servers would get their Newsgroups files set up
accordingly.


>> So you need something like:

>>     The application/group-info MUST be included if the group is moderated,
>>     in which case it MUST include a <moderation-flag>. For other groups, it
>>     MAY be omitted if there is no <newsgroup-description> to be provided.

>Why do we need something like that?  There's a perfectly usable moderation
>flag in the Control header field.

OK, point taken there. The question is whether it would be normal for such
an application/group-info to be present for at least all moderated groups
(answer probably 'yes'), in which case should that be reinforced with at
least a 'SHOULD' (answer uncertain, but the 'SHOULD' you already have
covers it anyway)?

So I seem to have accepted your wording, but maybe there is still a need to
indicate that checkgroups are still appropriate even in hierarchies where
there are no <newsgroup-description>s.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [e-mail]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5