ietf-nntp Commetns on draft-15.pdf

[Clive D. W. Feather]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In message <3C333C28.258B3FC5 at verio.net>, Stan O. Barber <sob at verio.net> 
writes
>> > These commands are here because they are not usually used in a session.
>> > So, they are defined after all the commands that are usually used in a
>> > session.
>>
>> That is extraordinarily arrogant of you.
>Coming from you, I take that as a compliment. :-)

I must be slipping :-)

[...]
>> This machine is not alone. I strongly suspect that the Demon servers see
>> far more NEWNEWS commands than NEXT commands.
>The Demon servers are not all the news servers in the world, last I checked.

Yes, I'm well aware of that and that is not my point.

>The stats I have
>access to indicate that NEWNEWS is often used, but not used any more than
>GROUP/LAST/NEXT/STAT group.

Which is why I'm flabbergasted by the "not usually used" comment.

>Originally, the  sentiment was to encourage use of
>the GROUP/LAST/NEXT/STAT commands over using NEWNEWS.

"Originally" ? I didn't think we made such policy decisions in this 
document. You've even deleted the text about such-and-such being 
particularly fast.

What I'm saying is that these commands are equally valid and useful as 
GROUP etc. From our discussions on LISTGROUP, it appears that there are 
at least three working patterns for downloading a group:
     GROUP/NEXT/NEXT/NEXT/...
     [GROUP/]{LISTGROUP or OVER}/ARTICLE/ARTICLE/ARTICLE/...
     NEWNEWS/ARTICLE/ARTICLE/ARTICLE/...
I see no reason not to give these equal status. As such, the relevant 
commands all belong together, rather than a few being ghettoised in 
favour of various extensions.

I just think the final document will be easier to read if organised 
logically:

>> - greeting step
>> - mandatory commands
>> - conclusion step        ) either way round
>> - extensions             ) would be logical

>To quote your statement earlier, it's arrogant of you to assume that I don't
>know something
>that I actually do know.

I don't follow that.

>In any case, I am not looking to reorganize the
>document. I am looking to try to get the document wrapped up and submitted to
>IESG.

I've been asking for this reordering at least since draft 12 and 
possibly earlier. In all that time, I've been left with the impression 
that there are no objections, it was just waiting for a convenient time.

I don't understand you reasons for:
(a) leaving four commands out in the cold
(b) sticking the standard extensions in the middle of the mandatory 
commands.

>> UTF-8 is *defined* by the Unicode Organisation in cooperation with ISO.
>>
>> What we're talking about here is a syntax notation.
[...]
>Do you believe that no more changes to the BNF concerning UTF8 will be required
>after this change?

Once we've got this right ? Yes, I do believe that. I'm going to take 
the details of this change to a separate message so that those who don't 
care can ignore it more easily.

> We have to stop changing the document at some point to get
>the work closed out and there is a point where the changes are not really doing
>significant good.

I agree. The question is whether we're at that point yet.

- -- 
Clive D.W. Feather    | Internet Expert      | Work: <clive at demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet       | Home: <clive at davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | Thus plc             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQEVAwUBPDSxNyNAHP3TFZrhAQH/lwf+OXqySWmMXolEeAlr5dLOMeME3XllLCSH
KJgDdgA+YSgPAgTsZsVLSktf/WZiOBnrgxOLpJWGsvVZaXg44/z2GXhsoOVazEGf
Phm2hVE04G6w8F31iuHlbwGFuuSoFKPbhe92fNqpNcekVnQuW5HhpeWH+n5CDFju
M7uaHoQCIH1Kk3r2MW/asFlKej7sHWnXMzMCwa3CUa3re8eI5yaL5Wv07LiudoLa
C1+1xJDABFDW08abV51rEPN5sPa2GfldkrSMa+EWalTxpw+J5McdmXyY494G/6oF
uBr26Z6ts8SjZiSGBE9oYeb7fj+FuM67UPXy1IgWO7xrMU1qUc7/OQ==
=1zQq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----