ietf-nntp "Common NNTP Extensions" document updated

[Vincent Archer]

On Mon, Dec 01, 1997 at 02:53:50PM +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> That's fine if there is a good reason that a lot of people aren't going
> to be compliant. In this case, there isn't. Removing a currently
> mandatory command that existing software relies on is a pretty drastic
> step.

I'm not advocating the removal of the command, just the part that mandate
the existence of this command in the protocol. Any server implementation
is quite welcome to support it, just like any server implementation is
welcome to support XHDR, XOVER or even MODE.

The RFC will then provide "If the server implements NEWNEWS, it will
behave like this..."

What I'm saying (and no more) is that, if the spec require a server to
implement NEWNEWS to conform, then we'll have lots of non-compliant
servers, and people will still refuse to have NEWNEWS enabled on their
site. 

I ask again: Do we want the RFC to reflect actual use, or an ideal net?

-- 
Vincent ARCHER  -=-=-  Herve Schauer Consultants -=-=-   archer at hsc.fr
Tel: +33 1 41 40 97 00                          Fax: +33 1 41 40 97 09
        01 41 40 97 00                                  01 41 40 97 09