ietf-nntp MODE READER proposed text

[Charles Lindsey]

In <ylitnlmw9e.fsf at windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:


>Charles Lindsey <chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:

>>>    Servers are encouraged to not require this command even though
>>>    clients SHOULD send it when appropriate.  It is present to support
>>>    some news architectures which switch between modes based on whether
>>>    a given connection is a peer-to-peer connection with another server
>>>    or a news reading client.  It is preferrable instead to accept
>>>    peer-to-peer connections on a different port and to assume that all
>>>    connections to the standard NNTP port are from news reading clients.

>> If we are going to mention the possibility of an alternative port, then
>> we should allocate a specific port number for that purpose (after
>> getting proper clearance from IANA, of course).

>I'm wholeheartedly in favor of that and 433 has already been reserved for
>that purpose, but Stan said it was out of scope.

Well if that is out of scope, then so is the last sentence of what you
wrote. But it seems stupid to demand a separate RFD on so small an issue.

Could it not be in order to say that a different port MAY be used, for
which purpose the number 433 has been reserved by IANA?

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 436 6131      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5