ietf-nntp Another message from urs@akk.org about tin

[Stan O. Barber]

"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
> 
> Stan O. Barber said:
> >>>> In addition to this, I think it is important that the new spec
> >>>> mandates this - intelligent/obvious - behaviour:
> >>>>
> >>>>   All unrecognised 200 series codes should be assumed as
> >>>>   success.
> >> [...]
> >>> Seems like a good clarification to me. Any other opinions?
> >>
> >> Some time ago I proposed the wording:
> >>
> >>   If a client receives an unexpected response, it SHOULD use the first
> >>   digit to determine what action to take. In most cases, a reasonable
> >>   action would be that taken for a valid response with the same first
> >>   digit.
> >>
> >> What is wrong with it ?
> >
> > Are you saying you have a different opinion or the same opinion?
> 
> A similar opinion. I agree the issue should be clarified; I think that
> Lee's wording is too detailed and inflexible.

Okey. So you like the idea of clarification (that's good and in line with the
charter), but
not this particular wording. That means we have two alternative texts for
clarification of this. 

Do you think that having text in a standard that is "flexible" promotes
interoperability among different implementation? To me, that calls up the OSI
effort, which required a bunch of memorandi among implementors to clarify and
limit the "flexibility" in the OSI standards documents. I think detail in a
standard promotes interoperability.


> 
> > I am sure that
> > others will chime in if they like your wording over that offered by Lee Kindness
> 
> Well, I would hope so, but I seem to have seen little or no comment on much
> of the wording I have proposed.
> 

Ah. Now you are beginning to realize why this process takes time even when you
offer alternative texts in a "interactive" fashion. 
-- 
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