ietf-nntp Currently outstanding issues

[Jeffrey M. Vinocur]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Jeffrey M Vinocur <jeff at litech.org> writes:
> 
> > In the SASL draft-to-be, I believe we indicate that a client might be
> > wise to cache this information [...]
> 
> I'm content with it; I don't think that constitutes a "use" in the sense
> that that section means.  In other words, the client isn't blissfully
> assuming that the server still has the extension; it's just warning the
> user that the available extensions have changed.

Ok, good enough for me.


> > I definitely prefer MUST to SHOULD.  [...]
> 
> I'm a bit confused by what you're saying here, since it sounds like you're
> saying that you want the existing language (MUST over SHOULD) without an
> exception, which would mean that servers supporting other commands are
> completely non-compliant.
> 
> Could you clarify?

*blush*  I have no idea what my fingers were doing.  What I meant to say
was:

    I definitely prefer SHOULD to MUST.

Does that help?  :-)


> > therefore an extensions document based directly on the parts of 2980
> > that are still relevant -- which would be quite easy to write -- could
> > be forthcoming soon.
> 
> That would be excellent.

Ok, will start a thread about this.


-- 
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org