ietf-nntp New draft available
Stan Barber
sob at academ.com
Tue Sep 2 08:25:51 PDT 1997
> The extended syntax of NEWNEWS and NEWGROUPS are incompatible in so far
> that a client issuing 4 digit years will not work with a server that
> conforms to RFC977. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, just that
> it needs specifying. New RFC977bis clients will need to be aware of
> this if they are to interwork with old RFC977 servers.
I see your point. I will give this some thought for a future version of
the document.
>
> >The SLAVE command did nothing in RFC 977, so I removed it. Please tell me how
> >you use the SLAVE command. If lots of people use, we can put it back in. If
> >no one uses it, what's the point of having it in there?
>
> Nor am I arguing for the retention of the SLAVE command. But it is
> incompatible in that an RFC977 conforming client can expect the SLAVE
> command. Again it needs specifying.
Ditto.
> Sorry to labour the point, but are you saying that those commands not in
> the registry are mandatory and those in the registry are optional?
Yes.
> At the very least change the title of 10.2.1 to
>
> 10.2.1 ARTICLE, HEAD, BODY and STAT commands.
>
> But I would rather that it were split into individual sections, one for
> each command. Each section giving just the semantics and responses for
> that particular command, then referencing a section on the common
> semantics of the effect on the current article pointer etc.
I am willing to change it, but I'd like to see more feedback first.
--
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.
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list