I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-nntpext-base-06.txt

[Clive D.W. Feather]

In message <F201Dx.CAu at clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey
<chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes
>In 9.1, "the server SHOULD allocate the next sequential number" and in
>9.1.1.1 "reinstatement of the previous article, not a new article reusing
>the number". These both conflict with the intention on the USEFOR group to
>introduce a Replace command in addition to the present Supersedes. So it
>would be better to adjust those sentences. It should cause no problem to
>existing implementations.

I disagree. I think the USEFOR group is wrong to do it this way, and I
haven't seen a good reason why it should. Article numbers should map to
message-IDs uniquely, not changing over time.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather   | Regulation Officer, LINX | Work: <clive at linx.org>
Tel: +44 1733 705000 | (on secondment from      | Home: <cdwf at i.am>
Fax: +44 1733 353929 |  Demon Internet)         | <http://i.am/davros>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address