[NNTP] Snapshot 4
rra at stanford.edu
Tue Nov 30 20:07:58 PST 2004
Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:
> Charles Lindsey said:
>> For the record, I would prefer "LIST CAPABILITIES"
> I don't.
> LIST is already a complete mess and the idea of two-part command names is
> also a complete mess. I can't do much about the ones already there, but I
> see no reason to make the situation worse.
I don't have any real opinion on this and am happy to let someone make an
arbitrary decision unless we can come up with a strong argument one way or
the other. (Andrew? You'd said you'd prefer LIST before as well.)
>> Do we actually need a LIST EXTENSIONS command at all? Other than to say
>> it is an obsolete version of [LIST] CAPABILITIES that may be
>> encountered in a few servers.
> If we are going to say anything about it at all, let's give it a proper
> specification. It's a lack of proper specifications that have caused the
> previous messes.
> As to whether we need it at all, I think we do to provide a bridge between
> v2 servers and v1 clients.
I would prefer to drop LIST EXTENSIONS entirely; it was an invention of
this working group, has only small (and not very useful) deployment in
practice, and really doesn't seem useful for any client to send given the
direction that we're going. v1 clients wouldn't know anything about it,
so I don't know how it could provide a bridge.
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the ietf-nntp