[ietf-nntp] Draft 21
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Wed Feb 18 08:55:41 PST 2004
Ken Murchison said:
> I understand what this passage says, and I have coded it as such, but
> the last sentence in 7.6.5.2 can be somewhat misleading:
>
> "Note that an empty list is a possible valid response (whether or not a
> wildmat is specified) and indicates that there are no such groups."
>
> Perhaps this should say: "... indicates that there are no groups
> matching the selection criteria which have descriptions."
That's what "such groups" means, but I'll clarify a bit:
... no groups meeting the above criteria.
both here and LIST ACTIVE.TIMES.
>>>Perhaps we should get rid of HDR ALL and replace it
>>>with a different response code (214, 216?) for LIST HEADERS which means
>>>"all".
>>The list must carry the special item ":" to mean "all". See the examples
>>for how this is handled.
> Sorry, I missed that. Do we really want two ways to say the same thing
> (HDR ALL and ":"), ":" seems sufficient. But I'm not going to argue.
The idea was that HDR ALL means "you don't need to bother with LIST
HEADERS if you only want headers, not metadata"; both it and the latter
command are optimisations when dealing with headers.
I would say that:
* EITHER we leave it as is (simple),
* OR we be completely symmetrical, and modify LIST HEADERS to be:
LIST HEADERS MSGID list headers available with message-id
LIST HEADERS ARTNO list headers available with number/no argument
LIST HEADERS list headers available in both ways
and make the LIST EXTENSIONS results be:
HDR ALL LIST HEADERS returns ":"
HDR ALLMSGID LIST HEADERS MSGID returns ":", ARTNO doesn't
HDR ALLARTNO LIST HEADERS ARTNO returns ":", MSGID doesn't
HDR No form of LIST HEADERS returns ":"
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive at demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: <clive at davros.org> | *** NOTE CHANGE ***
Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax: +44 870 051 9937
Thus plc | | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list