ietf-nntp Informal extensions

[Russ Allbery]

Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:

> What this says is that, if LIST OVERVIEW.FMT is no longer documented,
> then it MUST NOT be provided (since it doesn't begin with X). Similarly,
> MODE SLAVE (or any other such feature) MUST NOT be provided.

> While this fits in with a clean protocol design, is it what we want?

No, I don't think so.  It would be nice to get there from here, but I
don't think we can quite that easily.  I wonder if we can say something
like "such commands SHOULD begin with X unless they're provided for
backward compatibility with NNTP extensions that predate LIST EXTENSIONS
(such as those specified in RFC 2980)."

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>