ietf-nntp Draft 17 pre-2

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Russ Allbery said:
>>> I think we should bypass this entire debate and just not standardize
>>> LIST OVERVIEW.FMT at all.

I've about reached the same conclusion, but you're in charge here. Shall
I remove it from draft 18?

>> [Which reminds me, could we do something like require all future
>> extensions to use 6xx for multiline responses? Or is that too far?]
> I'm not sure that really buys anything, given the number of multiline
> responses that we already have that don't use 6xx.

It would at least make it a closed problem. At present, the client code
that handles responses has to have a table of codes that are multiline, and
even then has one case where that doesn't tell it whether the response will
be multi-line response or not. This doesn't make for modular code.

I suppose I'm just looking to stop the problem getting any worse in the
future.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:  +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |