[NNTP] Consensus?

[Russ Allbery]

Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:

> Where are we on reaching consensus on the following items?

> (1) Article number limits. In particular, the possibilities of:
>   (a) changing the limit from 2^32-1 to 2^31-1;
>   (b) adding wording saying the present situation is unsatisfactory but
>       is being worked on ready for the next version of this document.

> (2) Limits on the length of command name and capability labels.

> [For (1), my preference is to reduce the limit and add the wording. For
> (2), it is to remove the limit.]

(2) I think we've reached a solid consensus on removing the limit.  If
anyone disagrees, please speak up now.  (Note that even with consensus, my
understanding of the process is that we don't publish a new draft.
Instead, when the RFC Editor contacts Clive for author's 48 hours, he
would tell them to make the change at that time.)

For (1), the discussion has been wide-ranging enough that I'm not sure on
(a).  I know some folks here would like the limit removed entirely, but I
don't have a good feeling on what people think about 2^32-1 versus 2^31-1
assuming that we keep a limit.  More discussion would be valuable there, I
believe.

For (b), had you or someone else already posted a specific wording
suggestion?  (I've been swamped this past week and fairly busy before
that, so may have missed it.)  Would this change include warning people to
use longer data types as well?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>