[NNTP] Article number wording

[Russ Allbery]

Ade Lovett <ade at lovett.com> writes:

> We are hurting implementors considerably more by not releasing the
> document for publication with this eleventh-hour discussion.  That is
> not to say that this discussion is in any way invalid, but having read
> the entire thread, it seems very unlikely that any kind of consensus is
> going to be reached quickly.  Taking one point from the above, I would
> have to completely disagree on the use of MUST.  At most, it whould be a
> SHOULD.

> I again appeal to the WG chair to publish the document as-is, and we can
> continue these discussions in the meantime, along with any other nits
> that will result in the far bigger audience reading the document as a
> result of it being published as a Proposed Standard.

I haven't put any sort of hold on the documents, so for right now the
process is continuing.  Nothing is likely to happen to the base document
before the extension documents are approved, which will hopefully happen
at the July 21st IESG telechat.

So the discussion can happen without worrying that it's delaying anything.
The RFC Editor queue also looks fairly long, so I'm not sure how long the
documents will wait there before they're actually published.

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