ietf-nntp 32/64 bit question

[Anton Chr. Lauridsen]

>
>Anton Chr. Lauridsen said:
>> I realize that requiring all news readers to be able to support 64
bit 
>> article numbers is a tall order, and a means to enable slow migration

>> might be in order, but if this is not the time to start this 
>> transition, one may wonder when it will be. A simple solution may be 
>> to allocate response codes 203 and 204 as welcome messages for
servers 
>> that use 64 bit integers as article numbers, this way a client can 
>> tell if it may run into trouble.
>
>The way to do it is for you to define a BIGNUM extension. Then a server
can respond
>
>    401 BIGNUM Article numbers exceed 2**32
>
>any time the issue comes up and the client hasn't indicated it can
handle big numbers.

Nice one, I like that solution. This may be slightly off topic, but the
introduction to extensions hints that getting an extension registered
may very easily be rejected, based on the introduction in paragraph 8.

>   It must be emphasized that any extension to the NNTP service should
>   not be considered lightly. NNTP's strength comes primarily from its
>   simplicity. Experience with many protocols has shown that:
>
>      Protocols with few options tend towards ubiquity, whilst
protocols
>      with many options tend towards obscurity.
>
>   This means that each and every extension, regardless of its
benefits,
>   must be carefully scrutinized with respect to its implementation,
>   deployment, and interoperability costs. In many cases, the cost of
>   extending the NNTP service will likely outweigh the benefit.

And at the end of the same paragraph:

>   A server MUST NOT send different response codes to basic NNTP
>   commands documented here or commands documented in registered

Forcing a potential BIGNUM extension to be registered. Do we/you have
any views regarding the rejection/acceptance of extensions ?

/anton