Re: ABNF nits

[Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I "invented" the "Disposition" line in the template because it seemed
> like a good way to do it. However, on readng RFC 4288, I now think it
> would be better to include it under an "Additional Information" line in
> the template, since section 4.11 of that RFC seems to imply that you can
> put anything sensible in there. The change could easily be made.

I stuck it into Implementation considerations, which seemed even more
appropriate, but I can move it if people think that would be better.

> I also note that there is a "Restriction on usage" header in the RFC
> 4288 template, and it might be useful to say that news-groupinfo and
> news-checkgroups were only for use in newsgroup control messages (in
> which case the "Intended usage" header should say "LINITED USE").

I don't see a need to limit either to newsgroup control messages.  They're
both useful outside of that context (news-checkgroups more so,
admittedly).  However, I don't feel strongly about news-groupinfo; if
people think it's sufficiently weird that it doesn't make any sense to use
it outside of control messages, I'm willing to make that change.  I feel
more strongly that news-checkgroups is appropriate in a much wider variety
of situations.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>