ietf-nntp Alternative HDR parameter proposal
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Thu Jul 31 10:15:25 PDT 2003
Ken Murchison said:
>> The problem here is that while the possible headers are unlimited, and you
>> have to look in the articles, the metadata available *has* to be defined by
>> the server.
>> Therefore I suggest that there be a different response code (216?) for the
>> ALL case, which lists only those metadata items supported by the server;
>> it would be required to include :lines and :bytes.
> Hmm. If it is necessary to enumerate the metadata regardless of which
> headers are supported,
Which it is, because of where the metadata is created.
> perhaps we ditch the ALL capability keyword.
I still think it's a useful thing to have - if you don't want metadata,
it saves the need for a LIST HEADERS.
> can either use a different LIST HEADERS response code in the ALL case
> (as you suggest above), or a special keyword in the 215 response, eg:
> C> LIST HEADERS
> S> 215 headers follow:
> S> * <= means all headers
> S> :lines
> S> :bytes
> S> .
I'm not particularly bothered - the two are functionally equivalent.
Someone needs to make a decision, though.
It does make me think, though - in the non-ALL case, do we want to require
all headers before all metadata items? If we take your approach to the ALL
case I think it would be useful to require the * to be either first or
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive at demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: <clive at davros.org> | *** NOTE CHANGE ***
Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax: +44 870 051 9937
Thus plc | | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
More information about the ietf-nntp