New NNTP extensions in INN 1.5?

[Stan Barber]

Johnathan writes:
> We probably won't go tossing things into the new RFC that are not built 
> into software that is not available.  I think everyone involved is eager
> to work with the ISC guys to make sure that INN 1.5 interoperates
> with other software, but I'd say that the way to make that happen is
> to get the software working first, and then put the standards together.

I think it is important that ISC participate in this work, but let's not
get the cart before the horse. The way the IETF standards process works is
to establish the standard as a draft and have developers develop software
that interoperate (hopefully) based on implemeneting that draft standard.

That means that should ISC release INN 1.5 before the draft standard is
available, then ISC should consider releasing an INN 1.5.X that would have
the necessary modifications in it to bring it into compliance with the
standard. It does not mean that the standard should be developed to
track whatever is released as INN 1.5.

> This points to the fact that we need to start nailing down the extension 
> mechanism as soon as we can!  The longer we delay, the more new XFOOBAR 
> NNTP commands will crop up that will have to be dealt with ad hoc.

No debate about that. That's why the draft will be available soon after the 
BOF. Once it is available, then folks can debate the merits of the
proposed mechanism for doing such extensions. The reason I want a draft on
the table before we debate is so I can leverage what has already been
learned from the other working groups (specifically the MADMAN group) in
doing extensions. This type of "front-loading" will keep us from having to
cover ground already covered by these other groups and will hopefully 
keep us moving forward on discussions about issues that are specific to
NNTP. There may be some of you that would rather discuss these issues without
a draft, but I'd ask that you wait until the draft it out so we can all be
reading from the same set of ideas to keep the discussion concrete and on
target. It is possible that some "XFOOBAR" commands will emerge while this
process is going on, but at least at the end of the process, we can
then incorporate those commands in the new architecture or just document
them in another informational RFC that might be titled "Common NNTP Extensions,
The Sequel"....:-)

One of the things I have been looking for at this time is comments on RFC 977
that should be clarified (and I have received some of those, which I 
appreciate very much) and some comments on the extensions draft (which I also 
appreciate very much). These will be incorporated in the development
of this mid-August draft document (as well as future versions of the
extensions draft that I will continue to update and release until it 
either moves forward or is removed, whichever seems more appropriate at 
that time).


-- 
Stan   | Academ Consulting Services        |internet: sob at academ.com
Olan   | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob
Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.