[NNTP] Snapshot 4

[Ken Murchison]

Russ Allbery wrote:

> Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:
> 
>>Ken Murchison said:
> 
> 
>>>VERSION 2,3
> 
> 
>><Cringe />
> 
> 
>>If people want the version information in the initial response line, then
>>we could put it there, and like that, instead of a capability line. This
>>would then mean there's no reason at all to require the lines to be
>>ordered.
> 
> 
>>Pre-4 defines the version numbers as just that, integers. Since the message
>>is "I support this one and that one and that one", I would suggest using +
>>or & rather than comma:
> 
> 
>>    [C] CAPABILITIES
>>    [S] 101 2+3+7 I'm talented, I am. Here's the capability list.
>>    [S] READER
>>    [S] OVER MSGID
>>    [S] HDR
>>    [S] .
> 
> 
>>Preferences from others? VERSION line with spaces, or argument to the 101
>>response with plus signs?
> 
> 
> Bleh.  I don't want yet another delimiter and parsing problem to show up.
> I'm not sure the problem is complex enough to invent even more syntax.
> 
> 
>>>BTW, didn't Russ say that he preferred "NNTPv2" to "VERSION 2"?
> 
> 
> I did, but also that I didn't feel that strongly about it.
> 
> 
>>But I don't. In particular, I don't want "NNTPv2 NNTPv3" as a capability
>>line.
> 
> 
> They'd be separate lines, in the vague way I'd been thinking about the
> world, for whatever it's worth.

That was might thought too, which would then throw my initial response 
line idea out the window.  Using the initial response line might be 
useful down the road, but not if we have to introduce syntactic cruft to 
make it happen.  Specifying that the version token(s) MUST be the first 
capability(s) in the list might be sufficient.

-- 
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