ietf-nntp new Draft available

[Charles Lindsey]

In <19991108115831.E78826 at remarq.com> Ade Lovett <ade at lovett.com> writes:


> 4.  Section 11.3 (NEWGROUPS)

>     Remove all references to "UTC", it's not in RFC822
>     (though "UT" is - those Longhorns get everywhere :), and RFC1036
>     explicitly refers to GMT as Universal Time.

As regards the Date: header, DRUMS (RFC-822-bis) allows "UT" and "GMT"
(plus a host of others) under its "obsolete syntax", preferring "+0000" or
"-0000". USEFOR (RFC-1036-bis) discards all obsolete syntax from DRUMS,
and so allows neither (but suggests a following comment, as in "... +0000
(GMT)").

So there seems no case on those grounds for introducing "UTC", and
certainly not if no existing software supports it. Rather, it might be
sensible to introduce "+0000", though I do not press the point.

So it would seem the decision reached at the meeting is the correct one.


-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7  65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5