[NNTP] LISTGROUP

[Mark Crispin]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> These three-digit codes are *ARBITRARY*. While the structure might not be
> what we would choose today, it's what we've got. There is *NO* benefit to
> changing it, particularly using some baroque arrangement that returns
> different codes to different clietns.

The benefit is compliance with standard Internet protocol architecture.

I don't understand why the NNTP community is so determined to defy 
Internet standards and produce something which is similar, but different. 
I really hope that we are past the "news is news and mail is mail and 
ne'er the twain shall meet" attitude.

>> But, but, doesn't 6.1.1.2 ban that?  No, because that's the GROUP command
>> response.  This is a different command response.  If you want it to have
>> the same semantics as GROUP then you must *say* that.
> LISTGROUP currently says:
>    (the arguments on the initial response line are the same as
>    for the GROUP command)
> and
>    In all other aspects the LISTGROUP command behaves identically to the
>    GROUP command.
> That text will be staying.

That does not answer the objection.  The values (not "arguments" -- yet 
another thing that needs fixes) on the response line are documented 
independently in LISTGROUP and with subtly different wording.  That 
indicates that their semantics are different; and the difference is that 
the unique text in 6.1.1.2 does not apply.

The text
     (the arguments on the initial response line are the same as
     for the GROUP command)
clearly states that the values have the same syntax and names, not that 
their semantics are the same.  The text
     In all other aspects the LISTGROUP command behaves identically to the
     GROUP command.
doesn't apply because this isn't an "other respect"

Mr. Feather may have dictatoral power over the document now, but his 
dictatorship ends the instant the document is published as an RFC (or he 
is replaced as document editor).  Afterwards, his statements have *no* 
authority on the protocol.  If the document does not state what it means 
explicitly, then the protocol does not state it either.

You *must* make the document stand on its own.

>> There is no reason why the three zeros response should be allowed in an
>> NNTPv2 compliant server.
> There is no reason why it should not be allowed.

The three zeros response implies that article numbers have been reset, and 
that the client should discard all knowledge of article numbers. 
However, NNTP lacks the UIDVALIDITY mechanism of IMAP, so there is a 
timing problem.  The client may or may not reset its record of article 
numbers depending upon whether it sees the three zeros response.


-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.