ietf-nntp Draft summary of IETF 48 meeting
chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Tue Aug 8 02:49:47 PDT 2000
In <200008080306.WAA29132 at academ.com> sob at academ.com (Stan Barber) writes:
>Clarification of wildmat usage in various commands
>There has been some discussion about how to deal with compound wildmats versus
>multiple wildmats. The group decided that commas can be used to link together
>wildmats to form a compound wildmat. A space would separate multiple wildmats.
>Spaces can be embedded in a wildmat if preceded by a backslash. If a command
>can have multiple wildmats (or compound wildmats), the evaluation of each
>wildmat is treated independently (i.e. a logical OR).
What commands, if any, will require a space-separated list of wildmats?
Certainly not NEWNEWS. If it is just PAT, can we have an explanation of
what is _supposed_ to happen? It would be simpler to do away with such
space-separated lists unless there is a clear example that needs them.
>There was no consensus here. The group discussed that it could be used to
>partition commands between a "reader" server and a "feeder" server. This
>does parallel certain vendor products. David Riley is supposed to propose
>some text on the list for further discussion.
>Replacing me as editor
>There was no support for removing me as editor. I will release the next draft
>by the end of August and will do my best to release a new draft each month in
>which there is evidence of substantial changes.
Your promise noted, and it will be good if you can stick to it. But it
would also help if you could give intermediate indications regarding texts
which have been discussed, to say that they will (or won't) be
incorporated in the next draft.
>Effective immediately and until the work of this group is completed, suggested
>changes to any of drafts (other than those that have to do with spelling and
>grammar) must be accompanied by replacement text. The text does not have to be
>super polished, but it must be clear enough to support the point-of-view of
>the advocate(s) for change. Expressions of support for changes must be
>explicit as well as expressions of support for no change. The final decision
>on what gets changed remains that of the chair.
No, that does not work. I believe the PAT command is a total mess, but I
cannot suggest alternative texts for it, because I have not the slightest
clue as to what it is supposed to do. So does that mean I am not allowed
to raise it?
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 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
More information about the ietf-nntp