ietf-nntp XHDR versus XPAT

[Ben Polk]

At 09:34 PM 10/12/96 +0100, USENET news manager wrote:

>If we were planning an ideal world from scratch, it would be fine to say
>that since one proposed command was a superset of another, the less powerful
>one isn't needed. When the less powerful command has been around longer and
>newsreaders expect to find it, I don't think it can be ignored and suggest
>it needs to be retained (with the same considerations applying to it having
>an X-name as for XOVER).

I think John makes a convincing case that both XPAT and XOVER should
be documented in the RFC.  Stan?