ietf-nntp Currently outstanding issues

[Charles Lindsey]

In <20030709080810.GG8082 at finch-staff-1.thus.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive at demon.net> writes:

>Nor am I. On the other hand, if there *isn't* an issue, then why do we want
>undocumented commands to begin with an X? Either there is an
>interoperability issue or there isn't. If there is, what is it? If there
>isn't, why is SHOULD appropriate?

What an "X-" command should tell you is "please don't try to copy this -
I'm just trying out a new idea".


>All of that says to me that we're flogging a dead horse. If we're not going
>to have a register of names in use (and I agree that it's overkill at this
>stage in the game), then I think all we need to say is that the standards
>process MUST NOT use X* and rely on the relatively small development
>community to co-ordinate among themselves. Perhaps add some wording saying
>that you SHOULD use X* until ready to document it for wider use.

Yes, I think we all know what we are trying to say, but cannot think of
the proper way to say it. Feel free to copy (and improve) the mealy
mouthed wording currently in the USEFOR draft (hopefully USEFOR won't need
it if the Klyne IANA thing goes through).

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5