ietf-nntp Draft summary of IETF 48 meeting

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Stan O. Barber said:
>> No, that does not work. I believe the PAT command is a total mess, but I
>> cannot suggest alternative texts for it, because I have not the slightest
>> clue as to what it is supposed to do. So does that mean I am not allowed
>> to raise it?
> That's right.

In which case Charles should suggest the alternative text:

    PAT

    This command returns a random string.

as being a more accurate description of the situation.

I'm afraid I agree with him here; the rule sounds like an attempt to squash
debate by bureaucracy. It is one thing to ban statements like "someone
should reword PAT to do X" without proposed text; I can live with that. It
is another to forbid questions entirely.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:  +44 20 8371 1037
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | DFax: +44 20 8371 4037
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646