ietf-nntp DEBUG command (9xx)

[Stan O. Barber]

"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
> 
> Stan O. Barber said:
> >>>>> However, RFC 977 does not agree with either of you, so we can't go down
> >>>>> that path.
> >> Why not ?
> > Here is the charter:
> >
> > The IETF NNTP extensions Working Group shall:
> [...]
> 
> I notice that you omit:
> 
>     The first concern of this working group shall be for the
>     interoperability of the various NNTP implementations, and therefore for
>     clear and explicit specification of the protocol. It is very important
>     that we document the existing situation before taking up any new work.
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> (<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nntpext-charter.html>)

That work was completed in another draft. That draft was been in the hands of
the ADs since March of 1988 pending action by the IESG.


> 
> Are you saying that we must remain exactly compatible with 977 even in the
> places where 977 is a work of fiction and/or obsolete ? That we must *not*
> document the current situation ?


No, I am not saying that we have to remain exactly compatible with 977. We do
have to indicate in this document where varience from 977 does occur. We should
only choose to document those aspects of current practice where such additions
from the basic stuff in 977 is CRITICAL to insure the current practice is not
broken by the implementation of compliant clients and servers. Those current
practice items that are very useful, but not critical, should be documented as
extensions to this base document. This is one reason that authorization has been
moved to an extension (as an example). It is also one of the reasons that SLAVE
(from 977) is not in the current draft.

> 
> Yet you appear to think it is okay to add a new mandatory DEBUG command
> that is not even hinted at in 977.

As stated elsewhere, that was an attempt to clarify how the x9x codes should be
used. Others have suggested alternative ways to clarify this use and I am very
open to such alternative clarifications of RFC977.


> 
> If so, I have great trouble believing that the authors of the charter meant
> that. Do I need to make a call for rechartering this group ?


As one of the folks involved in authoring the charter, I am pretty famliar with
the intent here. I don't recall you being involved, but I could be wrong. Were
you?

If there is to be a new charter, then I think this group should be concluded and
a new group chartered. Then you can write the charter and there will be no
question in your mind what it means.


> 
> > Right now, by my count, we have two folks who agree with this. I would not
> > consider this a
> > consensus.
> 
> We have none who disagree that I can see.

That does not imply consensus. 


> 
> What do you consider is required to attain consensus when there is no
> dissent ? a lone dissenter ? How long does it take ?
> 

To me, either of two things:

1. Call for a specific comment in the WG mailing list and ask folks
participating to comment affirmatively if they agree or negatively. If the list
has enough active participants (and this list at times has not), then these
questions can be resolved in a day or so.

2. Call for action at a WG meeting. I think you know when WG meetings happen, so
you know how long that will take.

-- 
Stan   | PGP Key ID: 55CB6421     | Opinions expressed are only mine.
Olan   | Phone: +1-713-793-0222   | Email: sob at academ.com
Barber | Fax:   +1-713-793-0221   | http://www.academ.com/~sob