ietf-nntp LIST EXTENSIONS

Russ Allbery rra at stanford.edu
Wed Sep 10 10:19:05 PDT 2003


Ken Murchison <ken at oceana.com> writes:
> Clive D.W. Feather wrote:

>> (3) Saying SHOULD is rather stronger than just encouraging, because it has
>>     conformance implications.

> Per 2119 SHOULD and RECOMMEND are synonymous and I don't see where this
> causes a compliance problem.

Huh, I thought 2119 had the whole "fully conformant" vs. "conditionally
conformant" distinction.  I must be remembering something from one of the
mail RFCs instead.

> MUST might be too strong here.  This goes back to the plaintext password
> issue.  SHOULD might be satisfactory, we'll find out in last call and
> IESG review.

Bear in mind that the last call isn't going to have an authentication
command to review (unless they want us to issue both RFCs at the same
time), since that's a separate draft.  And those sorts of requirements can
easily go into that draft; they don't necessarily need to be part of the
base specification.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list