From: Claus Färber (list-ietf-wg-apps-usefor@faerber.muc.de)
Date: Tue Aug 14 2001 - 10:00:00 CDT
Erland Sommarskog <sommar-usefor@algonet.se> schrieb/wrote:
> To be perfectly frank I would not protest loudly if mvgroup was
> moved to an experimental RFC. If memory serves, mvgroup is there
> because Claus André Färber wrote the text, and no one protested
> about it being included.
I wrote the text because there was a strong pressure from the
working group to write it; noone anticipated big problems with
implementations back then (except when newsgroups were to be
merged).
Furhter, I always wanted to split the draft into smaller, more
manageable parts but the working group did not want to. Actually,
the first draft of mine _was_ separate.
The best solution now would be to write a message format
specification based on RFC 2822 - something back then noone wanted
because it would take too long to wait for DRUMS - accompanied by
another specification (or multiple specifications) that defines
the format and semantics of control messages.
Claus
--
begin Your-so-called-newsreader-is-seriously-broken
unless you can read this.
end
http://www.faerber.muc.de