ietf-nntp draft-ietf-nntpext-base-17

[Russ Allbery]

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

> Two points:

> 1: Maybe its relation to ACTIVE.TIMES should be mentioned (as a Note).

I think it may well be a good idea to mention, in the description of LIST
ACTIVE.TIMES, that NEWGROUPS should generally be used instead.

> 2: Should there be some indication that asking for everything since 5
> years ago might lead to disappointment? There seems to be no response
> code for that situation. Which of the generic responses is appropriate
> if records don't go back as far as you asked? Or do you just get a list
> of new groups since whenever the server's records start?

Hm.  I wouldn't be opposed to saying something in the section on NEWGROUPS
about this.  I don't think we need a new response, but it may be good to
warn users that the response may not be what they expect.

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