ietf-nntp <0> and message IDs

[Charles Lindsey]

In <ylof3imaa7.fsf at windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:

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

>> Yes, but I think the point is that if some extension provides a TAKETHIS
>> command, then failure to provide a message-id in the command, or as a
>> header in the article, should be a big No No, meriting a 5xx response.

>Why?

Because we don't want multiple copies of the same article with different
message-ids.

>> Therefore, it should be made clear that "inventing" a message-id is ONLY
>> allowed with the POST command.

>I see no reason to outlaw an extension that offers a new POST-like
>command.

Sure, if you invent a NEWPOST command, then its specification says that it
can 'invent' message-ids. My point is that the default state should be
that commands *don't* invent message-ids except where it is explicitly
stated that they should, and POST is the only one lihe that in out present
draft.

-- 
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