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

From: Julien ÉLIE <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 22:13:18 +0200

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)

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:11:43 GMT

>That is what I will ask unless someone replies to explain why [USENET_BP]

It should be referenced in exactly the same way as it is referenced in RFC
5536 et seq.

Mind you, "in Progress" is likely to be a very long time :-( .

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Julien ÉLIE <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:44:24 +0200

Hi Charles,

> It should be referenced in exactly the same way as it is referenced in RFC

Then I will switch to what RFC 5536 uses:

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

> Mind you, "in Progress" is likely to be a very long time :-( .

I hope time will not be longer than this other one mentioned
in the references:

   [NNTP_LIST]  Hernacki, B., "NNTP LIST Additions", Work in Progress,
                July 1997.

Anyway, NNTP_LIST is now obsolete and no longer needs work!

What is the next step for USEAGE?  What is missing (besides putting
it up to date with latest published RFCs)?
Isn't a -02 already in edition?

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Vulnera dum sanas, dolor est medicina doloris. »

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:29:20 -0700

> Isn't a -02 already in edition?

We hadn't reached (or even tried to reach) consensus on a lot of stuff
that was supposed to go in there, so I think there's a lot of effort and
discussion remaining to publish.

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