ietf-nntp DRAFT summary of IETF 49
jcalvin at ll.mit.edu
Tue Jan 9 06:54:34 PST 2001
>Charles Lindsey <chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
>> Yes, that is OK, but it needs to be explicitly stated that attempting to
>> read puts you into reader mode automatically (insofar as that concept is
>> meaningful outside of particular implementations). It might also be said
>> that using IHAVE automatically takes you out of that mode. You then
>> include the MODE READ command as an obsolescent feature and deprecate
>> implementations that require it.
>So basically you're advocating outlawing any implementation that uses two
>separate programs to handle feeds and reading connections.
>Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
Russ suggested considering the use of an alternate port. Once upon a
time, someone started to do this. Port 443 is reserved for NNSP,
which when I last looked at it, appeared to be a stripped down
version of the NNTP protocol. Basically it removed all reader class
Certainly worth considering a such a split.
More information about the ietf-nntp