ietf-nntp Issue: reinstatement

[Clive D.W. Feather]

<RANT>
Will people please note that I am *not* talking about either:
(a) backfilling - allocating article numbers other than in strictly
increasing order;
(b) the crazy idea of using the same article number for two different
articles.
</RANT>

My definition of reinstatement: an article is removed (either because of a
cancel or expiry), and then the server operator decides that this removal
was an error and reinstates the article *with the same number*.

In earlier discussion, I was under the impression that people wanted to
allow this behaviour; the alternative is to state explicitly that, once an
article has been removed, it will never reappear.

Jon Ribbens:
> There's a lot of wording taken up with this eventuality. I don't
> see the need to document it.

If it's allowed, then we need to include enough wording to describe the
implications, even if it's rare. If it's forbidden, we should say so, so that
client authors can rely on the fact.

> 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.

Without that condition, the low water mark might decrease. Everyone was
against that.


I don't know what the concensus mechanism is for this list; when someone
tells me we have a consensus one way or the other on this issue, I'll
adjust the wording as needed.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather    | Associate Director  | Director
Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | CityScape Internet Services Ltd.
Fax: +44 181 371 1150 | <clive at demon.net>   | <cdwf at cityscape.co.uk>