ietf-nntp Revised Notes from IETF 49

[Stan O. Barber]

Andrew Gierth wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Stan" == Stan O Barber <sob at verio.net> writes:
> 
>  > "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
>  >> Can you name these "vocal" people so we can attempt to persuade
>  >> them ?
> 
>  Stan> All the email is on line. There is no need for me to name them
>  Stan> since they name themselves.
> 
> No-one on this list, as far as I can tell from archives, has ever
> expressed vocal support for the use of "UTC" as a token parameter to
> NEWNEWS or NEWGROUPS. As far as I can tell it started as an offhand
> suggestion from Charles Lindsey, and every other comment on it in the
> archives (including at least one from Charles) has disapproved of it
> on the basis of incompatibility.
> 
> There has been a lot of discussion of UTC in terms of the _meaning_ of
> the time parameters to NEWNEWS and NEWGROUPS, but this is not the same
> issue.

I don't agree. As far as I am concerned, this is the very heart of the issue.
What does it mean? 

So, if we all agree that the whole discussion was a rathole and not worth the
trouble, we can certainly remove it from the draft and revert back to what was
in RFC 977.

I will watch to see if we have agreement on this. Otherwise, it stays as is.