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

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Jeffrey M. Vinocur said:
>> 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.

Is it really current practice?

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

That's nonsense.

Firstly, there are many other responses in the main NNTP document which
contain significant data after the response code. Nobody seems to have a
problem with this.

Secondly, that wording conflicts with the main NNTP document, which reads
in part:

    Certain responses contain parameters such as numbers and names in
    addition to the status indicator. In those cases, to simplify
    interpretation by the client the number and type of such parameters
    is fixed for each response code, as is whether or not the code
    introduces a multi-line response. Any extension MUST follow this
    principle as well,
[...]
    Parameters MUST be separated from the numeric status indicator and
    from each other by a single space.
[...]
    The server MAY add any text after the response code or last parameter
    as appropriate, and the client MUST NOT make decisions based on this
    text. Such text MUST be separated from the numeric status indicator
    or the last parameter by at least one space. 

In other words, if you just delete the paragraph in the responses section
then it both brings you back into compliance and eliminates the arguments.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | *** NOTE CHANGE ***
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646