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

[Clive D. W. Feather]

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

In message <yly92uqkog.fsf at windlord.stanford.edu>, Russ Allbery 
<rra at stanford.edu> writes
>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.

Done.

>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.

Two questions:
(1) Is NEWGROUPS supposed to be consistent with LIST ACTIVE.TIMES? Is 
this a SHOULD or a MUST sort of thing?
(2) Can NEWGROUPS fail to return the entire list of groups even if given 
an "old enough" date? You appear to be saying so. If so, do we want to 
discourage this?

- -- 
Clive D.W. Feather     |  Internet Expert  | Work: <clive at demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138  |  Demon Internet   | Home: <clive at davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937  |  Thus plc         | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk 2.0.5

iQEVAwUBPonv3yNAHP3TFZrhAQFVYAf/S3OWWfQW9T7eTMincAcUbvPgsQvFC/ZY
CeXA2M0OA3/OAB2peCuaQ+EbZlynjjuN7/qjvv/CE/3JDgzw131v/rybElhI1V5H
xmNLyaXsjHFlm2c8qZOd1CwoeHWyNvbjNuhRvTnJRLMo3i5QTvb//usZH2yKRVHL
+J8PYdcfCjYYc2T4LKhlieTeauiASbBj9HbjZGEXe8Gyj2SxTqkljuXuj6UxmUkx
2g+rEQyptraim2Dj6CFXDSk02nsSMIZLRkkOHl38DEOGobXDyc/L77KfURxXuEIb
CG2g+kC8/Eo2zf8N18YfCRCBywFp2GIP8VYFgz3YJMSMnnwNekdpzg==
=O6k2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----