ietf-nntp New wording on article numbers - draft 3

[Simon Lyall]

I am sorry to bring up an old topic but I have only recently joined this 
list and I have been working my way through the archives. Anyway I came 
across the following proposed wording:

On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Proposed wording for RFC 977bis concerning article numbering.
> =============================================================
[..]
> 
>     The server MUST ensure that article numbers are issued in order of
>     arrival timestamp; that is, later arriving articles MUST have higher
>     numbers than earlier arriving ones. The server SHOULD allocate the first
>     unused number to each new article.

Recently a couple of proposals have been made as to what might be 
included in an updated RFC1036 document. One of the ideas by Brad 
Templeton was for:

|        "Replaces" header.  Turns out 90% of times when you want to fix
|                a message, you're making a minor change.   You want
|                anybody who has not seen the article to see a corrected
|                one but you *don't* want people who already read it
|                to see it all over just to correct a typo.  So you
|                want to replace an article in-place.

Obviously the best way to impliment the header would for such an article 
to physically replace the parent in the spool (on systems such as INN). 

However this would appear to go against the proposed text, do people feel 
that this is a situation that needs a adjustment of wording? 

As a follow-on to this, I am interested in getting a group to work on a 
RFC 1036 update, as far as I am aware nobody is actively working on this. 
If there is a group could someone please email me a contact, otherwise I 
would be interested in talking to people who wish to set-up such a group.

--
Simon Lyall. | Looking for Work | Mail: simon at darkmere.gen.nz
"Inside me Im Screaming, Nobody pays any attention."  |  MT.