ietf-nntp Revised Notes from IETF 49

[Paul Overell]

In article <3A7315EC.409F7E20 at verio.net>, Stan O. Barber <sob at verio.net>
writes
>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? 
>

The NEWNEWS and NEWGROUPS token "GMT" means UTC. 

>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.
>

RFC977 text is not satisfactory as it does not define the meaning of the
"GMT" token.  It needs to say that it means UTC.  This is semantics not
syntax.

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

Changing the syntax by adding a "UTC" token is a bad idea as it breaks
backwards compatibility.

Keep RFC977 syntax, but specify the meaning of the "GMT" token.


Regards
-- 
Paul Overell                                             T U R N P I K E