ietf-nntp Section 11.5 - NEWNEWS

David Riley David.Riley at software.com
Mon Jul 24 17:03:42 PDT 2000


On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 04:06:43PM -0500, Stan O. Barber wrote:
> David Riley wrote:
> 
> > Implementation aside, many servers do not provide NEWNEWS access.
> > If client authors are writing news clients based on the standards, I think
> > they should be made aware, that there software will not be usable on many
> > systems if they rely upon NEWNEWS.  If we're documenting common practice,
> > I would argue that not providing NEWNEWS is common practice.
> > INN suggests against enabling it, Diablo does not implement it, and our
> > software (Typhoon, Twister, and Breeze) ships with it defaulted to off.
> 
> Again, NEWNEWS is in RFC977, so it needs to be in this document.

I agree that NEWNEWS should be in the document.  But I think that it should
be noted that common practice is for the command to be disabled and that
client authors should not be relying upon the command for their operation
if they hope to remain completely compatible.  Hence my suggestion for
NEWNEWS being an optional extensions.  (I'm still trying to track down the
old argument in the archives).

> [Though, we did leave out SLAVE in the new document, but that was based
> on the fact that there was no implementation of SLAVE that seemed to
> clarify how it might be used.]

Also, what happened with CHECK/TAKETHIS?  Again, both are the norm for
transit of all articles between servers.  I think that both of these
commands should be documented.

I remember reading AUTHINFO wasn't included since the IETF does not approve
of any protocols with cleartext passwords?  Is this the case?  Again,
AUTHINFO USER and AUTHINFO PASS are the norm and I think they should be
documented in the draft.

-- 
David Riley
David.Riley at software.com - Software.com, Inc. (Vancouver, B.C.)



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list