ietf-nntp Notes from the IETF41 meeting

[John Hascall]

> John Hascall writes:
> >      IHAVE xxx   ------------->
> >                 <-------------   "DONT WANT THAT"
> >      WHYNOT      ------------->
> >                 <-------------   REASON(S)

> This is an interesting idea.

      For the record, for those not at the IETF WG,
      the idea is not original with me (just the
      "fix" to it suggested above).

> How long do "REASON"'s apply?  ...

      As I understand it, the original intention was just
      for 1 xmit session, but some alternatives were
      discussed briefly (with no good alternative arising).
      
> I still like the idea of a scheduled system by which the sending
> site does a "LIST FEEDENTRY", and the site spits back a structured
> list of what the newsfeeds entry should be.  ...

      It certainly has an appeal from an "I don't have to email
      all my peer sites everytime I make a change" perspective.
      
> My other concern is NNTP is already a very lock-step protocol.
> I realize there will probably be a streaming counterpart to this,
> but I wish that the news transport datastream would try to conserve
> all its bandwidth towards moving bits across the wire.  While this
> would conserve bandwidth in the end, I think the other system would
> conserve more.  The FEEDENTRY stuff would be done off-peak when bandwith
> is cheap, and leave the peak times for maximum news flow.

      Or FEEDENTRY could be a delta-based-system:

      LIST FEEDENTRY SINCE YYYYMMDDHHMMSS

      which would mean most of the time it would say nothing.

      However the dynfeed proposal can handle reasons other
      than the newsfeeds entry -- for example, it could be
      used in dynamic spam detection, for example:

         IHAVE blah  ---->
                     <---- DONTWANT
         WHYNOT --------->
                     <---- REASON PATHINCLUDES cyberscumbag.com

John
PS, I couldn't agree more on the streaming business.