[NNTP] Re: Nearly there
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Thu Aug 10 07:47:21 PDT 2006
Russ Allbery said:
>> I'm very nervous about raising this, after all the arguments this time
>> last year, but I believe that changing it to 2^31-1 is the correct thing
>> to do *FOR THIS VERSION OF THE NNTP SPECIFICATION*.
> I won't argue against either 2^31-1 or 2^32-1, but I'm not sure how much
> we can get away with changing at this stage in the actual protocol
If I understood what Scott said, we can make such changes at AUTH48
provided it's been through the working group.
> > It is likely that at some stage at least one NNTP server will reach
> > the limit of [4,294,967,295] in at least one newsgroup. Ways to deal
> > with this while not gratuitously breaking compatibility are still
> > being investigated and are likely to result in publication of a
> > revision or extension to this specification at some future date.
> > While servers MUST NOT send article numbers greater than this limit,
> > client and server developers are advised to use internal structures
> > and datatypes capable of handling larger values in anticipation of
> > such a change.
> I'm not sure what to think about this. I think overall it's not a bad
> idea, though, and might be helpful. Since the above doesn't change the
> protocol specification, it's more palatable during AUTH48 to me.
The first part was in lieu of anyone coming up with a mutually acceptable
proposal in the timescale. The second part is a blatant hint to developers
not to use 32-bit variables in the future.
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive at demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: <clive at davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
THUS plc | |
More information about the ietf-nntp