NEWNEWS (was Re: ietf-nntp "Common NNTP Extensions" document updated)

[Stan Barber]

> Yes, in that draft, but personally I don't like to see INN's lousy
> implementation of NEWNEWS being used as an example of why NEWNEWS shouldn't be
> in a new NNTP standard. INN is the reference implementation that should be
> fixed, and with a decent NEWNEWS implementation, it would be safe to leave
> NEWNEWS enabled in the default configuration, and then the situation would be
> reverse with the common practice being the opposite.  Will this be the case
> before the "common practices" draft is completed? :)

Unless there is heavy need for futher revisions, I would expect the "common 
practices" draft to be forwarded to the AD's/IESG after IETF 40. Give that 
there have been no call for substantial changes to the draft for the last 
three months, I don't anticipate any substantial objection about moving the 
draft forward at that time. Any valid objections that anyone would raise 
should include specific text changes and rationale for those changes.
-- 
Stan   | Academ Consulting Services        |internet: sob at academ.com
Olan   | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob
Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.