ietf-nntp Merge Newman's Authinfo draft into Main Draft?
Chris.Lewis.clewis at nt.com
Wed May 27 05:58:21 PDT 1998
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980526034948.538982028C-100000 at INNOSOFT.COM> Chris Newman <Chris.Newman at INNOSOFT.COM> writes:
> >NNTPEXT is forbidden from adding new features to the protocol -- this
> >includes authentication technology which isn't already deployed. On the
> >flip side, the IESG requires that if any authentication mechanism is
> >included in the base spec, then there must be a mandatory-to-implement
> >mechanism which does not use plaintext passwords. These two requirements
> >end up being contradictory in this case.
> If Microsoft have already implemented it, then it IS deployed.
> >NNTPEXT has two choices:
> Why not add
> (C) Just DO it. I doubt IESG will object. Ask them if you must.
I agree. INN and NNTP 1.5.12 and Netscape also have GENERIC. I know that
INN and 1.5.12 are compatible with each other but are slightly different
with both the original proposed spec (as per sob's modifications to
return codes) and Microsoft (as per the base64 stuff affecting the stuff
that's _in_ the server as opposed to what's in the authenticator). I really
don't care which precise generic spec we use, just that it's codified as one of
the existing practises, and _in_ the spec, and then let the vendors fix their
instantiations to be consistent.
More information about the ietf-nntp