Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This memo defines an extension to the Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) to provide asynchronous (otherwise known as "streaming") transfer of articles. This allows servers to transfer articles to other servers with much greater efficiency.

This document updates and formalizes the CHECK and TAKETHIS commands specified in RFC 2980 and deprecates the MODE STREAM command. [STANDARDS-TRACK]')

AD evaluation comments:

Abstract: an abstract must be able to stand in isolation from the rest of the spec, so references shouldn't be included.  Please replace [NNTP] with "(NNTP)" and [NNTP-COMMON] with "RFC 2980".

Section 2.2, third paragraph: "over 95% acceptance may be a reasonable metric in some configurations".  Please consider using a word other than "may" in this sentence (and anywhere else 2119 directives are used in lower-case form) because some people aren't sure if you are using the word as a 2119 directive or not.  The IESG also appears to be split on this issue, so I find it best to use synonyms if a directive isn't intended.

Section 7.1: Please consider updating the [ABNF] reference to use draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis instead of RFC 2234.  The IESG recently approved draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis to obsolete 2234.  It's in the RFC Editor queue.

None of these are significant.  I will start the last call.  Please consider these in the same context as any other comments received during the last call process.