headers
Julien ÉLIE | 18 Oct 2010 22:13
Favicon

[NNTP] AUTH48 of RFC 6048 (additions to LIST)

Hi all,

"NNTP Additions to LIST Command" will be published as RFC 6048
and is now in AUTH48.

Do not hesitate to speak up in case you wish to adjust something.

    http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc6048
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6048.txt

* The RFC Editor renamed [I-D.ietf-usefor-useage] this way:

   [USENET_BP]  Lindsey, C., "Usenet Best Practice", Work in Progress,
                March 2005.

Do you think it is OK and better than [USEAGE], as it is worded
in RFCs 5536 and 5537?  I believe it would be more consistent with [USEAGE].
That is what I will ask unless someone replies to explain why [USENET_BP]
should be kept.

[NNTP_LIST] seems fine for [I-D.draft-hernacki-nntplist].

* The RFC Editor changed a few "status" into "status fields".  Well, I think
she is right.  And it also highlights other places where it should be changed...

In Section 1:

   The ACTIVE variant was formalized in [RFC3977], but the meanings of
   only three status fields in LIST ACTIVE responses have been
   specified:  "y", "n", and "m".  These status field values are
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 20 Oct 2010 17:11
Picon
Picon

Re: [NNTP] Babble from Julien ÉLIE <julien <at> trigofacile.com>

In <1F184B4166014CBAA12857818BD69D64 <at> Iulius> =?iso-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
<julien <at> trigofacile.com> writes:

>* The RFC Editor renamed [I-D.ietf-usefor-useage] this way:

>   [USENET_BP]  Lindsey, C., "Usenet Best Practice", Work in Progress,
>                March 2005.

>Do you think it is OK and better than [USEAGE], as it is worded
>in RFCs 5536 and 5537?  I believe it would be more consistent with [USEAGE].
>That is what I will ask unless someone replies to explain why [USENET_BP]
>should be kept.

It should be referenced in exactly the same way as it is referenced in RFC
5536 et seq.

Mind you, "in Progress" is likely to be a very long time :-( .

--

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk      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
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Julien ÉLIE | 20 Oct 2010 19:44
Favicon

Re: [NNTP] Babble from Julien ÉLIE

Hi Charles,

>> * The RFC Editor renamed [I-D.ietf-usefor-useage] this way:
>>
>>   [USENET_BP]  Lindsey, C., "Usenet Best Practice", Work in Progress,
>>                March 2005.
>>
>> Do you think it is OK and better than [USEAGE], as it is worded
>> in RFCs 5536 and 5537?  I believe it would be more consistent with [USEAGE].
>> That is what I will ask unless someone replies to explain why [USENET_BP]
>> should be kept.
>
> It should be referenced in exactly the same way as it is referenced in RFC
> 5536 et seq.

Then I will switch to what RFC 5536 uses:

   [USEAGE]       Lindsey, C., "Usenet Best Practice", Work in Progress,
                  March 2005.

> Mind you, "in Progress" is likely to be a very long time :-( .

I hope time will not be longer than this other one mentioned
in the references:

   [NNTP_LIST]  Hernacki, B., "NNTP LIST Additions", Work in Progress,
                July 1997.

Anyway, NNTP_LIST is now obsolete and no longer needs work!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Russ Allbery | 20 Oct 2010 20:29
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [NNTP] Babble from Julien ÉLIE

Julien ÉLIE <julien <at> trigofacile.com> writes:

> What is the next step for USEAGE?  What is missing (besides putting
> it up to date with latest published RFCs)?
> Isn't a -02 already in edition?

We hadn't reached (or even tried to reach) consensus on a lot of stuff
that was supposed to go in there, so I think there's a lot of effort and
discussion remaining to publish.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Julien ÉLIE | 10 Nov 2010 00:07
Favicon

Re: [NNTP] AUTH48 of RFC 6048 (additions to LIST)

Hi all,

> Original:
> The reported high and low water marks, and the estimated number of
> articles are as described in the GROUP command (see Section 6.1.1 of
> [RFC3977]), but note that they are in the opposite order to the 211
> response to that command.

I have just asked for:

   The reported high and low water marks, and the estimated number of
   articles, are as described in the GROUP command (see Section 6.1.1 of
   [RFC3977]), but note that they are in the opposite order to the 211
   response (that is, number low high group) to the GROUP command.

> Original:
> This article is filed under "foo.bar" even though it has originally
> been posted, and still propagates to other peers, to the newsgroup
> "misc.test".

It is about:
    misc.test 3002322 3000234 =foo.bar
and a message with "Newsgroups: misc.test".

I have just asked for:

  This article is filed under "foo.bar" even though it has originally
  been posted to the newsgroup "misc.test".  Yet, it still propagates to peers
  that have been configured to receive articles posted to "misc.test".
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane