ietf-nntp DEBUG command (9xx)

Stan O. Barber sob at verio.net
Fri Jul 28 05:50:52 PDT 2000


"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
> 
> Stan O. Barber said:
> >>> However, RFC 977 does not agree with either of you, so we can't go down
> >>> that path.
> 
> Why not ?

Here is the charter:

The IETF NNTP extensions Working Group shall: 

1. Revise and publish a standards-track successor to RFC 977 that removes
ambiguities from the original document, defines a mechanism for adding
extensions to the protocol,
and provides a mechanism for the server to inform the client of the extensions
which it supports. 

2. Include in the same document some reasonable group of existing commonly used
extensions forming a new base functionality for NNTP. 

3. Upon completion of the RFC977 successor document, and presuming that
proposals for extensions to the NNTP protocol have been submitted for
consideration by IESG, the
working group may be asked by the IESG Applications Area Directors to review one
or more extensions for NNTP. 

Note that the only thing in the charter about "existing practices" is the notion
of including
some "commonly use extensions" in the base spec.

> 
> [And why doesn't this apply to (say) the DEBUG command ?]

[The DEBUG command was intended to clarify RFC977, which is part of the charter.
We can dispose of this command, but if we do, then we are left with the lack of
clarity on what 
happens when a client sees an X9X response during a session.]

> 
> >> RFC 977 disagrees with existing practice, which is that x8x codes are used
> >> for widely deployed extensions which should be standardized.  In this
> >> particular type of conflict between RFC 977 and existing practice, I think
> >> RFC 977 has to lose, particularly given the additional comments from
> >> Brian.
> 
> If we agree on what existing practice is, aren't we supposed to be
> documenting it ?

Existing practices was covered in another draft that has been pending
consideration by the IESG for more than a year. I will poke them again about it.


> 
> Remind me: is this document meant to be existing practice, best bits
> of existing practice, or existing practice with a few improvements that
> have consensus ? I thought it was the last.


Read the charter. It is neither of these things.


> 
> > Then, the document must explicitly say this. It does not today.
> 
> Fine.
> 
> *IF* we have consensus on this path, then let's *make* the document say it.
> I'll even do wording, but not until someone else tells me we have consensus
> (I've already done three versions of this wording; I'm getting confused).

Right now, by my count, we have two folks who agree with this. I would not
consider this a
consensus. 

-- 
Stan   | PGP Key ID: 55CB6421     | Opinions expressed are only mine.
Olan   | Phone: +1-713-793-0222   | Email: sob at academ.com
Barber | Fax:   +1-713-793-0221   | http://www.academ.com/~sob



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list