ietf-nntp New wording on article numbers
Jon Ribbens
jon at oaktree.co.uk
Fri Dec 27 18:49:13 PST 1996
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> The last article number MIGHT be less than the first article number. In
I don't think that MIGHT should be in capitals.
> * articles may be reinstated in the group with the same article number,
> but those articles MUST have numbers no less than the first article
> number in the response;
There's a lot of wording taken up with this eventuality. I don't
see the need to document it. Do you see a need for this to happen
in practice? What difference does it actually make to NNTP clients?
> When a subsequent GROUP command for the same newsgroup is issued, either
> by the same client or a different client, the first and last article
> numbers MUST be no less than those in the previous response for that
> newsgroup.
This is wrong. The last article number may quite possibly be less than
that from a previous response for that group. The last article number
is the highest number corresponding to a currently available
article - it is *not* the high-water-mark. If there are articles
2, 3 and 4, then the highest article number is 4. Subsequently
article 4 may be cancelled, and then the GROUP command must return
3 as the highest available article.
> A previously invalid article number might become valid
> if the article has been reinstated, but such an article number MUST be
> no less than the "first" article number specified in the most recent
> response to a GROUP command for that group.
As mentioned above, I think this is unnecessary. Even if you do want
this stuff in, I don't see a need for the condition that the article
number MUST be no less than the first article number. Nearly all
clients are going to miss the newly-reinstated article anyway.
Cheers
Jon
____
\ // Jon Ribbens //
\// jon at oaktree.co.uk //
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list