[NNTP] AUTH48 of RFC 6048 (additions to LIST)

Julien ÉLIE julien at trigofacile.com
Mon Oct 18 13:13:18 PDT 2010


Hi all,

"NNTP Additions to LIST Command" will be published as RFC 6048
and is now in AUTH48.

Do not hesitate to speak up in case you wish to adjust something.


    http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc6048
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6048.txt



* The RFC Editor renamed [I-D.ietf-usefor-useage] this way:

   [USENET_BP]  Lindsey, C., "Usenet Best Practice", Work in Progress,
                March 2005.

Do you think it is OK and better than [USEAGE], as it is worded
in RFCs 5536 and 5537?  I believe it would be more consistent with [USEAGE].
That is what I will ask unless someone replies to explain why [USENET_BP]
should be kept.



[NNTP_LIST] seems fine for [I-D.draft-hernacki-nntplist].




* The RFC Editor changed a few "status" into "status fields".  Well, I think
she is right.  And it also highlights other places where it should be changed...

In Section 1:

   The ACTIVE variant was formalized in [RFC3977], but the meanings of
   only three status fields in LIST ACTIVE responses have been
   specified:  "y", "n", and "m".  These status field values are
   particularly useful for readers, since they describe local posting
   rights.

should be changed to:

   The ACTIVE variant was formalized in [RFC3977], but the meanings of
   only three status field values in LIST ACTIVE responses have been
   specified:  "y", "n", and "m".  These status are particularly useful
   for readers, since they describe local posting rights.

Does it sound better?
(That is a problem similar to "header", "header field", "header field value"!)

If you agree with such a wording, I will check all the places where "status"
is used and change it to have a better terminology.
(I have quickly checked RFC 3977 and 5537; they both seem fine with the
terminology, except in Appendix D of RFC 3977 which mentions the "m" status
flag -- instead of "value".  Anyway, it is clear enough.)




* Another comment:

Original:
 The reported high and low water marks, and the estimated number of
 articles are as described in the GROUP command (see Section 6.1.1 of
 [RFC3977]), but note that they are in the opposite order to the 211
 response to that command.

Suggested:
 The reported high and low water marks, and the estimated number of
 articles, are as described in the GROUP command (see Section 6.1.1 of
 [RFC3977]), but note that they are in the opposite order to the 211
 response (that is, number low high group) to that command.


Hmm...  does someone have a better wording for the last parenthesis?
Maybe in natural language instead of the syntax for 211?
I'm fine with the RFC Editor suggestion, but if one suggests a better
wording, I will of course take it :-)



* And the last comment:

Original:
 This article is filed under "foo.bar" even though it has originally
 been posted, and still propagates to other peers, to the newsgroup
 "misc.test".

Suggested:
 This article is filed under "foo.bar" even though it has originally
 been posted to the newsgroup "misc.test" and still propagates to
 other peers.

It is about:

    misc.test 3002322 3000234 =foo.bar

and a message with "Newsgroups: misc.test".

I agree that the original is not optimal.  Yet, the suggestion does
not suit me.  Maybe:

 This article is filed under "foo.bar" even though it has originally
 been posted to the newsgroup "misc.test".  It propagates to peers
 that have been configured to receive articles posted to "misc.test".

Is it OK or do you have a better suggestion?  (I think there is no
need to explain "have been configured"...)



Thanks for your comments about these points.

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« I've had bad luck with both my wives.
  The first one left me, and the second one didn't. » (James Holt McGavran)



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list