[NNTP] Status and issue resolutions

Russ Allbery rra at stanford.edu
Thu May 19 19:50:07 PDT 2005


Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:

> Given that LISTGROUP remains unchanged, there is no technical issue with
> the change to GROUP. The issue is purely one of whether we should make
> the change at this late date. Does that affect your opinion?

I realize, and that has affected my opinion insofar as I was seriously
considering it.  However, the combination of the really late date and the
lack of consensus (including strong objections from at least one WG
participant) is enough for me to say let's not do this.

Should we suddenly develop a consensus that this change is fine,
particularly given that LISTGROUP's 211 response will continue to match
GROUP's, that would change my mind.  Other than that, I'd want to see a
really strong argument for why we have to have this, and the lack of
consensus worries me.

> Done. Note that there are consequential changes to LISTGROUP (because
> its behaviour is less like GROUP than before).

> It is easy enough to change it back if I have persuaded you :-).

:)

Note also the change in Appendix D.

> I've put a pre-3 draft in the usual place:

>     <http://www.davros.org/nntp-texts/draft26.pre-3.txt>
>     <http://www.davros.org/nntp-texts/draft26.pre-3.html>
>     <http://www.davros.org/nntp-texts/draft26.pre-3.unpg.txt>

> (the last of these has no page breaks, and may be easier for comparisons;
> unfortunately this facility has only just become available).

Thanks!  I'm going to start writing my sheparding writeups either tonight
or tomorrow morning, as I expect that's going to take me a while to get
through.

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



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list