[NNTP] Status and issue resolutions

[Russ Allbery]

I've reviewed all of the recent traffic to the list.  I'm very sorry about
the delay in doing so.

The internationalization section looks good to me except for some minor
changes that I sent separately.  That means that we now need to publish
and go to Last Call.

Ken, can you put out final versions of your drafts?  I don't believe there
have been many changes, but I seem to recall that the latest versions
weren't fully published as I-Ds.

For the outstanding issues, let me recap:

 * LISTGROUP is now part of READER.
 * The range argument to LISTGROUP is in.
 * NEWNEWS is its own capability.

After reading the discussion about the return status from LISTGROUP and
making the argument to GROUP optional, I think we're finely balanced on
the merits of both.  I'm therefore going to make a decision that isn't
going to make anyone entirely happy, but which has a time-honored
tradition in getting software out the door:  I'm going to just say it's
too late to change anything else.

That means that the LISTGROUP response is the same as the GROUP response,
as has been in our draft for a while, and it needs to include the group
name.  However, the change to GROUP to allow the group to be omitted is
out, and the text should be reverted to the previous version when the
group name is mandatory.

I'm doing this in the interest of getting this draft out the door, and the
most easily defensible position for me is to say that we're just not going
to change the stuff that we've had in there for a long time at this point.

If you want to talk me out of this, you have two days.  I would like to
get all of the drafts published as I-Ds this weekend and then go to IETF
Last Call.  Clive, I believe the outstanding changes to pre-2 are
therefore:

 * Changing the GROUP text.
 * Updates to the internationalization section as mentioned in my previous
   message, if you're comfortable with those.
 * Inclusion of the changes from previous RFCs section as discussed, if
   you're comfortable with that section.

Will it be possible for you do make those changes and submit the I-D by
this weekend?  If this is a bad time, very much understood; just let me
know what a better final date would be.

I'm going to send a separate message in a moment with pointers to the
requirements for I-Ds for Last Call.  We need to go over them one more
time and make sure everything is good.  This is something that we can
parallelize, and the more eyes the better, so I'd greatly appreciate it if
other working group members could volunteer to go through those
requirements and post any needed changes or issues to the list so that the
work doesn't all fall on the editors and myself (particularly since I'm
struggling a lot lately to find free time).

I think we're basically done.  Let's push them out the door; our documents
are a vast improvement over the existing situation, and it will be much,
much easier to prepare future revisions based on the new documents.

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