ietf-nntp "Common NNTP Extensions" document updated

[Vincent Archer]

On Mon, Dec 01, 1997 at 09:44:25AM -0600, Stan Barber wrote:
> > 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. 
> 
> Having NEWNEWS admnistratively disabled is different that server implementors
> not implementing it. I think that having the administrative capability to
> disable NEWNEWS is something that can be accomodated in the RFC977bis 
> document, but making it optional for implementors to implement is not
> a good idea.

Being more on the client side development than on the server side, I don't
see much difference between having a server that doesn't provide me the
NEWNEWS command and one that could, but where the admin has chosen to
disable it. In all cases, I can't rely on having NEWNEWS replying me
anything of use.

The last solution is probably more consensual. As long as it is not mandated
a server to reply a list of message-Ids to NEWNEWS, we can have the best
of both world. And since I'm not writing the server code, I don't really
care if we require more work from the programmer :)

> > I ask again: Do we want the RFC to reflect actual use, or an ideal net?
> Which RFC are you talking about? There are two drafts out right now. The
> "current practices" and the "RFC976bis". The Subject line you are responding
> to is concerning the "current practices" document.

Ulp. Yes, I was assuming the protocol RFC, not the current practices.

-- 
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