ietf-nntp OVER extension

[Charles Lindsey]

In <20011231175401.GA82915 at k0deZ.scriptkiddie.net> greg andruk <gja at meowing.net> writes:


>On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 12:21:39PM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> Andrew seems to think they *are*. Please will people report what their
>> servers actually DO with LIST OVERVIEW.FMT? (mine doesn't support it at
>> all).

>This is how it looks on virtually all servers that support it.  Xref:full
>may or may not be there, and other Foo:full headers may be present at the
>end.  The article number is not included, that is more an index or key.

> 215 Order of fields in overview database.
> Subject:
> From:
> Date:
> Message-ID:
> References:
> Bytes:
> Lines:
> Xref:full
> .

OK, that seems to be the proper way to do it. If that is agreed, then the
following actions are needed in the draft:

(a) Declare that the mandatory entries MUST be included.
(b) Declare that the bytes and lines entries are to be indicated by
"Bytes" and "Lines".
(c) Point out that "Lines" means the actual number of lines, not the
(possibly erroneous) content of any Lines header that may be present.
(d) No SP before "full".
(e) Make the example identical to the above.


>Yes, but an improved description of the NOV format should be included in the
>RFC.  Currently the only place it is fully documented is in the C News
>distribution.  INN's overview.fmt(5) describes that file's syntax, but not
>the ordering restrictions.

Indeed. This RFC will defacto become the official definition of Overview
(since it is not described in any other RFC). Therefore we must get it
right.

-- 
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