ietf-nntp INN vs the reference implementation

[Russ Allbery]

Brian Kantor <brian at UCSD.Edu> writes:

> As the current task is to document current/best practice, I would
> maintain that those parts of INN that are in daily use represent, to a
> very large degree, what current/best practice really is.  To the extent
> that INN differs from the standard, we should examine why very
> carefully, with a view that INN is more likely to be correct.

Fair enough; I can agree with that stance.  My point is more that INN has
a few things, like the 504 and 505 return codes, that probably shouldn't
be copied because the way the standard specifies that they should work is
more correct.  For things like interpretation of reading commands, I tend
to agree with you.

Anyway, after reading the entire archives of the list and getting a much
better feel for how this working group has developed, I'd like to
sincerely apologize to Stan for various mutterings from time to time about
the progress of the group.  I think a lot of the slowness has been due to
lots of people trying to talk about extensions rather than current
practice, lots of questions but no one picking up the ball to go research
the answers, and a paucity of proposed alternate text.  I think I'm now
better ramped up with where things are, and I'm going to try hard to
participate more actively here.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>