Subject: [NNTP] The meaning of T

From: clive at demon.net (Clive D.W. Feather)
Date: Wed Sep 1 02:38:11 2004

RFC 2821 says "Simple Mail  Transfer Protocol".
RFC 2616 says "Hypertext    Transfer Protocol".
RFC 765  says "File         Transfer Protocol".
RFC 977  says "Network News Transfer Protocol".

Yet our document is entitled "Network News Transport Protocol", and has
been so right the way back to draft 01.

Is this correct? If so, should the reason for the change be given anywhere?

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |

---

From: ken at oceana.com (Ken Murchison)
Date: Wed Sep 1 05:40:15 2004

> Is this correct? If so, should the reason for the change be given anywhere?

Is there a reason?  The only reason that I can think of to stray from 
the wording in those other drafts is that NNTP is both a *transfer* 
protocol and *access* protocol, but I don't know if *transport* captures 
both meanings.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp

---

From: ehall at ehsco.com (Eric A. Hall)
Date: Wed Sep 1 12:32:21 2004

> Is this correct? If so, should the reason for the change be given anywhere?

It really should be "Transfer" given that "Transport" has completely
different meaning in the IETF

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: rra at stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Wed Sep 1 12:45:49 2004

> different meaning in the IETF

RFC 977 says it should be Transfer, not Transport.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: clive at demon.net (Clive D.W. Feather)
Date: Thu Sep 2 01:12:43 2004

> RFC 977 says it should be Transfer, not Transport.

Okay, nobody seems to know why it got changed in the drafts, so I've
changed it back. I'm still amazed that nobody spotted this in several
years.

Russ, this means the actual document title has changed. Do I need to submit
a fresh draft to the I-D editors?

---

From: rra at stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Thu Sep 2 01:14:50 2004

Clive D W Feather <[email-masked]> writes:

> Russ, this means the actual document title has changed. Do I need to
> submit a fresh draft to the I-D editors?

I don't think so; I think this is something that the RFC Editor can take
care of when the time comes if we don't have a reason to publish a new
draft before then.

---

From: sah at 428cobrajet.net (Scott Hollenbeck)
Date: Thu Sep 2 05:34:27 2004

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Allbery [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:15 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [NNTP] The meaning of T
> 
> 

Actually, please do update the draft.  Little things like this can get lost
over time, and IESG reviewers are often not aware of minute details like
this.  It'll make things easier in the future if it's fixed now.

Don't be surprised, though if the title in the Secretariat-sent
announcements doesn't change.

-Scott-

---

From: clive at demon.net (Clive D.W. Feather)
Date: Tue Sep 7 07:04:05 2004

> this.  It'll make things easier in the future if it's fixed now.

It wouldn't have been lost because it had already been changed in my master
copy.

However, I've submitted a revised text as -24. It seems to have got lost in
the I-D process somewhere, though; it hasn't appeared yet.