ietf-nntp Draft 17 pre-2

[Clive D. W. Feather]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In message <3E5BD31A.2ED32C9E at oceana.com>, Ken Murchison 
<ken at oceana.com> writes
>> I think this is going to depend some on what extensions one is using.  In
>> another five years, for example, I certainly won't expect clients to send
>> LIST EXTENSIONS before trying OVER.
>
>Why not?  It might be safe to assume that all servers implement OVER,
>but what's the harm in checking?  Is there some technical reason why
>clients would/should/might not want to do option discovery, or is this
>just an argument being made by potentially lazy authors (not saying that
>Russ is lazy)?

Code option 1:

* Call LIST EXTENSIONS
* Check for 202 return code
* Check output for OVER
* Set a flag
* As required:
   * If flag set:
     * Call OVER
     * Check for 224 versus 423 versus 503

Code option 2:

* As required:
   * Call OVER
   * Check for 224 versus 423 versus 500

Code option 2bis:

* Set a flag
* As required:
   * If flag set:
     * Call OVER
     * Check for 224 versus 423 versus 500

Which would *you* implement?

- -- 
Clive D.W. Feather     |  Internet Expert  | Work: <clive at demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138  |  Demon Internet   | Home: <clive at davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937  |  Thus plc         | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk 2.0.5

iQEVAwUBPl5HISNAHP3TFZrhAQFaOgf/fzltnL9TK4Q9JSF0VldJkjF44v58rAX3
mw90C6PNCLTg7nyZyek339mxnpSqLctS7+bMLD0VuTgfJ9pYhQextBcGa7dROKnk
X0sC6k8i08D/OSYjcl6MS8uakv3nhwbeHYFL1cLIyGbCehaJ/HiE9MKq7awYpfPX
CCtI0gorJH/sOygWfokPWn1LjIP9dLJWKOONuKj9W/0cPlkfvNyKP/vwMsjZMoMI
SvVfvjtZbK6l+/dqfAY7jYhyazo0Rz3ui4HY2nx+gb6dDVYCeCPD49z5T5L0vKBv
YajZP/0nGodxxKxkkjuQkvg1OAuBY9UJGnrQ8oBwZ9MUE238NLQlPw==
=TXPp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----