ietf-nntp draft posted

[Russ Allbery]

Charles Lindsey <chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:

> Where is the Clive's text for wildmats, which was discussed extensively
> on this group and on which a consensus was reached?

The new wildmat text predated the beginning of my collection of things
that had been discussed on the list, and I didn't go back and add it
because I wasn't sure that we'd reached consensus on which form of wildmat
we decided to adopt.  There were two or three alternate texts proposed,
and it wasn't clear to me which people favored.  There are open questions
about whether character classes should be included, for example.

Can you point at the proposal that you feel has reached consensus?

> Can I remind you that it is now three years since I first pointed out
> the shortcomings of the Wildmat feature, and it has STILL not been
> fixed.

Relax.  We're getting there.  That's a rather hard and thorny issue and
there was a ton of mostly unresolved discussion about it, which I too
would interpret as meaning that the changes weren't final enough to get
into the draft.

I'm happy to continue tracking wording changes, so please raise whatever
you consider to be the current state of the wildmat stuff and we'll start
talking about it again.  It may be fairly quickly resolved at this point.

> I see no point whatsoever in submitting this draft as an ietf-draft
> until this matter has been attended to.

I do.  This draft is already very useful for real implementation of NNTP.
It's not complete; that's why it's a *draft*.  (But except for wildmat, I
think we're basically done.)

Thank you for all your work, Stan!  I'm on vacation at the moment, but as
soon as I get back I'll check the draft over against my list of changes
and double-check that everything made it in.

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