ietf-nntp Draft 20 pre-release 2

[Jeffrey M. Vinocur]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Ken Murchison wrote:
> 
> > > No.  But if we go down that route, I'd be happier with SHOULD send and
> > > SHOULD NOT cache (and perhaps MUST NOT cache security extensions).
> >
> > This is the language that I have been in favor or all along.  This is in
> > line with the other messaging protocols.
> 
> I agree.  (preferring the MUST NOT cache security extensions).

I do support Clive's point that this *is* a protocol document and thus
it's not really well-formed (or even in our scope?) for us to prohibit
caching per se.  

An alternative phrasing along the lines of "clients MUST send LIST
EXTENSIONS before using ..." would probably be more appropriate.  Or maybe 
we should emphasize that each extension document needs to state whether or 
not LIST EXTENSIONS is required before use of that extension, and remind 
extension document authors that security extensions should invoke that 
requirement.


-- 
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org