ietf-nntp New wording on article numbers
Jon Ribbens
jon at oaktree.co.uk
Sat Dec 28 05:45:56 PST 1996
Robert Elz wrote:
> 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.
>
> This can't possibly be right, article number 4 can't be used again,
> or readers that have read it before it was cancelled would never
> see it's replacement.
I think you've misread both Clive's original article, and my reply.
The part we're talking about has nothing to do with backfilling.
I didn't say article 4 may be used again. Extending the example
used above, the next article to come in would be numbered 5, and
then the GROUP command must return 5 as the highest available
article. However, until that happens, article 3 is the highest
available number.
> The GROUP command isn't intend to give any
> kind of authoritative statement about which articles actually exist,
> just what the relevant range of numbers is to look in - any of the
> articles in the range (including the lower and upper bounds) might
> be missing when requested specifically.
Indeed, however Clive's wording doesn't just *allow* the
numbers to be inaccurate guesses, it *requires* them to be
inaccurate guesses, even if the news server can do better.
The given wording makes INN non-compliant. In my book
that's good enough to make them worth a second look.
> I totally agree with the original wording, numbers reported must
> never go backwards.
I disagree ;-).
Cheers
Jon
____
\ // Jon Ribbens // 10MB virtual-hosted // www.oaktree.co.uk
\// jon at oaktree.co.uk // web space for 49UKP //
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list