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

From: Julien ÉLIE <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:07:18 +0100

Hi all,

> 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.

I have just asked for:

   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 the GROUP command.

> 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".

It is about:
    misc.test 3002322 3000234 =foo.bar
and a message with "Newsgroups: misc.test".

I have just asked for:

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

I also reported a few editorial nits.

Two technical issues:

Section 3.1

   When the status field begins with an equal sign ("=" or %x3D), the
   name of an existing newsgroup on the news server MUST immediately
   follow the sign.

[...]

   An alias SHOULD NOT point to itself or another alias group.  The
   newsgroup an alias points to SHOULD exist on the news server, and be
   visible to any client that can see the original group.

I believe there may be a problem here:  MUST in the first sentence
and SHOULD on the second sentence.
Maybe the first sentence should drop the "existing" adjective, and be:

   When the status field value begins with an equal sign ("=" or %x3D), a
   newsgroup name MUST immediately follow the sign.

We explicitly ask for a newsgroup name.  It is a MUST.  Then it SHOULD
exist and be visible.
It is what I have just asked during AUTH48.  Please tell me soon in case
you think the new wording is bad.

Section 4.2

OLD:
   distribution-description = S-TEXT

NEW:
   distribution-description = U-TEXT

We say in the document that the distribution MUST be encoded in UTF-8.
Therefore, it is a U-TEXT and not an S-TEXT as far as I understand the
terminology of RFC 3977.
I have checked in RFC 3977 how "S" and "U" are used, and I see that the HELP
command outputs U-CHAR (and not S-CHAR) -- and that it is also said that
the output MUST be encoded in UTF-8.

However, I keep S-TEXT for the moderators address.  (There is still
no UTF-8 in NNTP as for e-mail addresses -- RFC 5536 is based upon
RFC 5322.)

Again, if you disagree with the change, do not hesitate to speak up.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« A program should always respond to the user in the way that astonishes
  him least. » (Plauger's Law of Least Astonishment)