[NNTP] Re: Nearly there

[Russ Allbery]

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

> So, when I get the alert from the RFC Editor:
> - change 1 from my original email (remove limit of 12 characters) to be made;
> - wording above to be added;
> - either:
>   - article number limit left unchanged at 2^32-1
>   - article number limit changed to 2^31-1.

> But which? I still prefer the change, as it better represents what
> servers can rely on the client understanding.

A brief review of Unix NNTP software revealed a lot of programs that
assumed 2^31-1.  Given the current state of NNTP software development in
general (not very quick), I do think it's safer to tell people 2^31-1.
The argument the other direction is that 2^31-1 is a simple bug and a
fixable one at that, but I'm not sure that's a strong enough argument.

I really would like to see multiple people weigh in on this, preferrably
more than just Ken, Clive, and I.

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