ietf-nntp Section 11.5 - NEWNEWS
lkindness at csl.co.uk
Wed Nov 22 01:42:47 PST 2000
Paul Overell writes:
> Lee Kindness <lkindness at csl.co.uk> writes
> >Why? What in the spec requires an accurate time? I believe the DATE
> >command should return an arbitrary string/token - The client shouldn't
> >care in the slightest what it parses to - DATE is only really being
> >used to mark/note the time of the last NEWNEWS (or NEWGROUPS) command
> >issued. Clients should file this away and then resurrect it (and parse
> >it slightly) for sending as an argument to the next NEWNEWS/NEWGROUPS
> Requiring NEWNEWS and NEWGROUPS to use the "arbitrary string/token" from
> the DATE command is an incompatible change from RFC977.
> RFC977 does not have the DATE command so RFC977 conforming clients have
> to obtain UTC from their own sources.
> The only way to be compatible with RFC977 is if NEWNEWS and NEWGROUPS
> take UTC, therefore DATE must return UTC.
I still think that DATE should return the UTC time, however I don't
think we should be getting worked up about it. The only point that we
should be building up a time to send to NEW* is on the first
connection to a certain server - on subsequent connections we should
used a cached value from an earlier DATE command. Thus the accuracy of
the returned time is of no importance, we are automatically
synchronising to the servers time.
> >The DATE command MAY be accurate.
> You can't mean this - using MAY would imply that a server could *always*
> return 111 11111111111111 and still claim to be compliant!
More information about the ietf-nntp