ietf-nntp Draft 20 pre-release 2

[Ken Murchison]

Jeffrey M. Vinocur wrote:

> 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.

I tried pushing for that earlier and was shot down.  I'm still in favor 
of this.

> 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.

This *might* be an acceptable alternative.

-- 
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