ietf-nntp Draft 17 pre-2

[Ken Murchison]

"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
> 
> Ken Murchison said:
> > 10.5.2.2:  Is the alternate format for backwards compatibility with
> > existing OVER implementations or XOVER implementations?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> [Well, probably XOVER because I don't think anyone implements OVER yet.]
> 
> > If the latter,
> > why not just use the fact that a "new" client should/will issue LIST
> > EXTENSIONS before issuing LIST OVERVIEW.FMT, in which case we use the
> > preferred format.  Otherwise, we use the alternate format.
> 
> I'm very unhappy with the idea that LIST EXTENSIONS causes any kind of
> state change in the server. It's a kludge.

I agree that its not very elegant, but do we want a well-behaved client
that does extension discovery via LIST EXTENSIONS to have to deal with a
legacy OVERVIEW.FMT response.


> "It is not required that the client issues this command before
> attempting to make use of any extension."

I'd argue that a client SHOULD issue LIST EXTENSIONs before attempting
to use an extension.


-- 
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