Re: ISSUE 1583 status

Harald Alvestrand <[email protected]> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Here's proposed wording, which uses SHOULD rather than MUST for the
>> honoring side to leave wiggle room for things like a lost serial
>> number.
>>
>> --- usepro.xml  (revision 5620)
>> +++ usepro.xml  (working copy)
>> @@ -1953,12 +1953,14 @@
>>             <t>The &lt;chksernr> argument may be any positive integer.
>> If
>>            present, it MUST increase with every change to the newsgroup
>> -          list and MUST NOT ever decrease.  If provided, news servers
>> -          SHOULD remember the &lt;chksernr> value of the previous
>> -          checkgroups control message honored for a particular hierarchy
>> -          or sub-hierarchy and decline to honor any subsequent checkgroups
>> -          control message for the same hierarchy or sub-hierarchy with a
>> -          smaller &lt;chksernr> value.</t>
>> +          list, MUST NOT ever decrease, and MUST be included in all
>> +          subsequent checkgroups control messages with the same scope.
>> +          If provided, news servers SHOULD remember the &lt;chksernr>
>> +          value of the previous checkgroups control message honored for a
>> +          particular hierarchy or sub-hierarchy and decline to honor any
>> +          subsequent checkgroups control message for the same hierarchy
>> +          or sub-hierarchy with a smaller &lt;chksernr> value or with no
>> +          &lt;chksernr> value.</t>
>>             <figure>
>>              <preamble>For example, the following Control header

> I'm not very worried about this issue, but this seems fine with me.
> (couldn't find the change to the text surrounding the SHOULD, but I
> think the SHOULD leaves wiggle room enough for the case where weird
> stuff has happened.)

Does anyone have any objections?  If not, I'll go ahead and commit this.

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