ietf-nntp draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming-00

[Ken Murchison]

Jeffrey M. Vinocur wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Ken Murchison wrote:
> 
> 
>>Why the restriction on no freeform text in the responses?  This isn't in 
>>RFC 2980, and also differs from IHAVE.
> 
> 
> Well:
> 
> - I'm mostly trying to document current practice.

Are existing implementations so rigid that they can't handle anything 
other than:

NNN <message-id>\r\n


> - The responses have to contain the Message-ID, so what appears after
>   the code matters.

True.  Couldn't we just state that the message-id MUST immediately the 
follow response code and that freeform text MAY follow the message-id. 
Since a message-id has a well known syntax, is should be easy for a 
client to find the end of it.

The only reason that I bring this up, is that it is sometimes useful to 
have
a textual reason for a failure be part of the response.

-- 
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