ietf-nntp NNTP and 16-bit charsets

[Charles Lindsey]

In <ylhez41n4i.fsf at windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:


>Charles Lindsey <chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:

>> (I don't think it worth distinguishing between relaying and serving in
>> NNTP, because the ARTICLE command gets used for both).

>What are you classifying as "relaying" if you're using ARTICLE to do it?

AIUI, if A relays to B, then A says "IHAVE these articles" and then B, in
a following but separate transaction, says "then please send me these
ARTICLEs". So although B is using the same command (ARTICLE) as an
ordinary newsreader would use, he is using it for relaying purposes
(whether the server at A realises that or not).

>> It's a change for the format standards, but not for the transport (since
>> RFC 977 is silent on the issue AFAICS).

>RFC 977 refers to other standards which clearly set a 998 octet limit;
>that's been the only standard to which people can write code.  And the job
>of this working group is to standardize existing practice.

The job of this working group is to define a transport. It is the job of
USEFOR to set any limits thought necessary. The problem is that transport
and format standards tend to leapfrog each other (remember that this
standard will still have to refer to RFC 1036 as the format standard if it
is to be published before the USEFOR standard, unless we arrange that
they get published simultaneously as DRUMS did).

So the transport standard should define requirements as widely as
possible, provided it leads to no performance penalty or serious conflict
with existing usage

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk      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