[ietf-nntp] :bytes metadata

[Ken Murchison]

Andrew - Supernews wrote:

> This is why I suggest specifying the size as being _either_ the
> wireformat or canonical format size, because servers should have
> little difficulty providing one or the other, or at least a very close
> approximation. Any remaining variation is likely to be of the order of
> a few tens of bytes at most - which is not likely to cause any
> problems for a client _provided_ that the client author is aware of
> the inaccuracy.

Agreed.  But if we're just going to state that its a <= approximation, 
we probably don't need to get into the storage format.  If what we're 
saying is true, then the client shouldn't/won't care whether its stored 
in wire format, canonical format, base64 encoded or AES encrypted, as 
long as its gets a reasonable estimate of the canonical size.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp