[NNTP] Consensus?

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Russ Allbery said:
>> Personally I would like the wording changed to require (a MUST) 32 bit
>> support and suggest (a SHOULD) 64 bit support.
> That's two people supporting that option.  What does everyone else think
> about that?

I seriously don't like it.

It doesn't represent current practice, which is what we're supposed to be
documenting.

It introduces an interoperability issue. What happens if the server
supports the SHOULD and the client doesn't?

Finally, think how it actually would go into the wording. To remind you,
this is what the text currently says:

   The second type of key is
   composed of a newsgroup name and an article number within that
   newsgroup.
[...]
   Article numbers MUST lie between 1 and 4,294,967,295 inclusive.

[In the following I'll use the "2^N-1" notation for clarity.]

What are the proponents of this proposal actually suggesting for the
wording? Clearly they don't mean:

   Article numbers MUST lie between 1 and 2^32-1 inclusive and SHOULD
   lie between 1 and 2^64-1 inclusive.

because that's a nonsense. Do they mean the inverse?

   Article numbers MUST lie between 1 and 2^64-1 inclusive and SHOULD
   lie between 1 and 2^32-1 inclusive.

What is the effect of breaching the SHOULD?

Let's see some actual wording proposals here, including addressing the
inter-operability issues when any SHOULD or MAY is breached.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |