ietf-nntp New wording on article numbers - draft 2

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Robert Elz <kre at munnari.oz.au> writes
>    3.1.2.  ARTICLE (selection by number)
>    
>    A previously valid article number might not remain valid if the article
>    has been removed. 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 current low water mark for that group.
>
>I'm not sure that it actually hurts a lot if the number goes back.
>if the client has marked to the low water mark as gone, then the
>reinstatement below it will never be noticed, and may as well never
>have happened for that client, but that is harmless.  Other clients
>may see it.

I thought we had a consensus that the LWM should never decrease
(ignoring the 0 0 0 case). I've worded it on that basis.

I've taken note of your other comments.

-- 
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>
Written on my laptop - please reply to the Reply-To address <clive at demon.net>