ietf-nntp Draft comments

Stan O. Barber sob at verio.net
Mon Nov 13 12:10:55 PST 2000


Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> Stan O Barber <sob at verio.net> writes:
> 
> > 1. Section 5 -- Wildmat specification..... The last discussion we had
> > (that I see in the archives) was to replace this section with something
> > based on the latest INN documentation. I have not seen specific text on
> > this. I'd prefer someone else offer that and I edit it, but I can write
> > it if there is still interest in replacing this section.
> 
> Someone, I forget whom, had proposed text, but I think there was some
> consensus against that proposed text and in favor of some modification of
> my text at the IETF meeting?  I sent out my text with modifications to
> remove the mentions of poison expressions (which is more of an
> INN-specific thing that we don't need in the protocol), but I'm not sure
> if it was suitable as-is for inclusion.

Okey. I will look it over tonight and give some feedback.



> One of the outstanding issues with wildmat is handling of spaces and
> whether to introduce C-like backslash sequence for particular characters.

Understood.


> 
> > 2. Section 7 -- Streaming .... There was proposed text on this that I
> > didn't include in 11. My concern here is including this in the base
> > specification rather than putting it in an extension. I think it makes a
> > great extension, but I remain concerned about having in the base.
> 
> So am I.  I'm pretty much of the same opinion here; streaming just feels
> potentially complicated.

Yep. I remain concerned about how to list which commands are "stream-able" and
which are
not and how that list gets amended. 

> > Are there others? Please bring them up (or bring them up again, if they
> > were not addressed).
> 
> I think the other major issue was PAT.  How do you match strings
> containing spaces, are the matches done against the raw headers (and if
> so, how do you match newlines) or unfolded headers or something else, and
> do you do the same munging of the headers as overview does before
> matching?

I tried to clarify this by not permitting spaced in PAT at all. I tried to add
this in an
earlier version, but that seemed to get pooh-poohed, so I intended to remove it
in 11. I may have not been as effective as I should have been in doing that.
Good point on the folded headers. I think theey should be unfolded before
matching so the newline issue is removed.



> 
> The only other minor issue that I can recall right now is that the
> NEWGROUPS description of the date parameter allows for either two-digit or
> four-digit years without any expressed preference.  I think we should add
> a SHOULD use four digit years if the server supports that syntax, just to
> give a bit of impetus to people switching over.

Agreed. I intended to get that one as well, so I must have missed it.



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list