ietf-nntp OVER extension

[Clive D.W. Feather]

>>>>> But if (5) is agreed, then the whole LIST OVERVIEW.FMT command becomes
>>>>> redundant, as Greg Andruk has said.
>>>> Not so. It allows you to determine what headers will be provided and,
>>>> therefore, which ones are missing from any given response.

>> How do I know whether X-Wombat is included in the OVER output ? I can't
>> find out by using OVER on random articles, because I might be unlucky and
>> never hit an article with one in it. The only way to be *sure* is to look
>> at the LIST OVERVIEW.FMT output.
> 
> In a correct NOV implementation, only two fields (lines and references) are
> allowed to be blank.  All of the labeled fields must include labels, though
> of course there will only be text after the colon if the article contains
> some.  The one exception is that if _all_ the extension fields are blank,
> then all of the tabs following the unlabeled fields may be omitted.

But that's not what's been said by any draft or my proposed rewrite.

This is a significant issue: if X-Wombat is in the overview database, and
article N does not have an X-Wombat header, what does OVER (that is, our
new command, not anything historical) return as that field ? Is it:

(A) "X-Wombat:"
(B) ""             (that is, an empty string).

I've assumed (B), which makes LIST OVERVIEW.FMT useful. If the answer is
(A) then we need to rewrite my rewrite (or the original; take your pick).

> I've uploaded an HTML-formatted copy of the document
> to <URL:http://members.verizon.net/~vze35rzk/nntpext/newsoverview.5.html>
> for reference.

(1) It's less than clear to me whether "if they are absent entirely" refers
to the possibility of optional headers or their specific appearance in
specific articles. So I don't think that page answers our question.

On second thoughts, it supports me and not you. Note that 8871 has a
Supersedes: header but 8870 doesn't. Based on what you're saying, shouldn't
8870 end "...||821||Supersedes:" ?

(2) It says that line count is optional. We're making it mandatory, right ?

> I will again note that overview.fmt _does_ _not_ tell the client what
> headers have already been collected in the overview.  It describes what
> fields will be added in the immediate future, and it may or may not
> correspond to the contents of records stored before today.

That might be history. That's not what we're saying. It might be want we
*want* to say, but, if so, we need to agree it and make more changes.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:  +44 20 8371 4037
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |