chl at clerew.man.ac.uk
Wed Aug 17 13:29:14 PDT 2005
In <42FF1BAA.4050706 at nntpserver.com> Steve Walker <nntp at nntpserver.com> writes:
>You keep forgetting that RFC977 was completely text based and did
>not specify any binary limits.
As a consequence of which implementors used their common sense, and used
32 bit integers (or preferably unsigned). There are millions of clients
out there using those 32 bit ints, and a large number of people will still
be using them for many years to come. Therefore, a solution that allows
those to continue is much to be preferred (and yes, such solutions DO
> The current 32 bit limit is the
>new non-interoperable change to the protocol.
No, it was not a change. It just recognized and codified what was already
the de facto practice.
>If you can justify breaking existing software and forcing
>everything to use 32 bit binary numbers then you can just as
>easily force everyone to use 64 bit numbers.
It is you who has to justify breaking existing software (i.e. the huge
installed base of clients - I could perhaps justify breaking the much
smaller base of installed servers). I don't have to "force" everything to
use 32 bit numbers, as you claim. They are already doing that.
C. H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
More information about the ietf-nntp