Re: [NNTP] Babble from Julien ÉLIE

Hi Charles,

>> * 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 [US=
EAGE].
>> That is what I will ask unless someone replies to explain why [USENET_=
BP]
>> should be kept.
>
> It should be referenced in exactly the same way as it is referenced in =
RFC
> 5536 et seq.

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?

--=20
Julien =C9LIE

=AB Vulnera dum sanas, dolor est medicina doloris. =BB