ietf-nntp Notes from the IETF41 meeting
john at iastate.edu
Fri Apr 3 11:40:55 PST 1998
> John Hascall writes:
> > IHAVE xxx ------------->
> > <------------- "DONT WANT THAT"
> > WHYNOT ------------->
> > <------------- REASON(S)
> This is an interesting idea.
For the record, for those not at the IETF WG,
the idea is not original with me (just the
"fix" to it suggested above).
> How long do "REASON"'s apply? ...
As I understand it, the original intention was just
for 1 xmit session, but some alternatives were
discussed briefly (with no good alternative arising).
> I still like the idea of a scheduled system by which the sending
> site does a "LIST FEEDENTRY", and the site spits back a structured
> list of what the newsfeeds entry should be. ...
It certainly has an appeal from an "I don't have to email
all my peer sites everytime I make a change" perspective.
> My other concern is NNTP is already a very lock-step protocol.
> I realize there will probably be a streaming counterpart to this,
> but I wish that the news transport datastream would try to conserve
> all its bandwidth towards moving bits across the wire. While this
> would conserve bandwidth in the end, I think the other system would
> conserve more. The FEEDENTRY stuff would be done off-peak when bandwith
> is cheap, and leave the peak times for maximum news flow.
Or FEEDENTRY could be a delta-based-system:
LIST FEEDENTRY SINCE YYYYMMDDHHMMSS
which would mean most of the time it would say nothing.
However the dynfeed proposal can handle reasons other
than the newsfeeds entry -- for example, it could be
used in dynamic spam detection, for example:
IHAVE blah ---->
<---- REASON PATHINCLUDES cyberscumbag.com
PS, I couldn't agree more on the streaming business.
More information about the ietf-nntp