[ietf-nntp] Extension documents
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Tue Jun 8 08:38:38 PDT 2004
I'd like to make a recommendation for some general wording for extension
documents, including both AUTHINFO, TLS, and anything to follow. The idea
is to encourage consistency. Opinions?
Here are my proposals:
In the introduction, include:
This specification is to be read in conjunction with the NNTP base
specification [NNTP]. Except where specifically stated otherwise, in
the case of a conflict between these two documents [NNTP] takes
precedence over this one.
If only one extension is described in the document:
A server MAY provide this extensions, independently of any other
extension defined elsewhere. If the server provides the extension, it
MUST include the [XXXXXXX] extension label in the response to LIST
EXTENSIONS. If it does not provide it, it MUST NOT include the extension
label. The remainder of this specification is written as if the
extension is provided.
If the server provides this extension, it MUST implement all of the
commands in this document except for those marked as optional. If it
does not provide this extension, it MUST NOT implement any of the
commands.
If more than one extension is described in the document:
A server MAY provide each of these extensions, independently of any
other. If the server provides the extension, it MUST include the
appropriate extension label in the response to LIST EXTENSIONS. If it
does not provide it, it MUST NOT include the appropriate extension
label. The descriptions of facilities in each section are written as
if the extension is provided. If it is not provided, the entire section
should be ignored.
If the server provides an extension, it MUST implement all of the
commands in the specification of the extension except for those marked
as optional. If it does not provide an extension, it MUST NOT implement
any of the commands in the specification of that extension.
Wherever notation is discussed:
The notational conventions used in this document are the same as
those in [NNTP] and any term not defined in this document has the same
meaning as in that one.
In the syntax, have sections corresponding to those in the base document.
So:
X. Augmented BNF Syntax for the XXXXXXXX extension
This section describes the syntax of the XXXXXXXX extension.
It extends the syntax in [NNTP], and non-terminals not defined in
this document are defined there.
X.1 Commands
This syntax extends the non-terminal "command", which represents an
NNTP command.
command /= xxxxxxxx-command
[etc.]
X.2 Command continuation
This syntax extends the non-terminal "command-continuation", which
represents the further material sent by the client in the case of
multi-stage commands.
command-continuation /= xxxxxxxx-continuation
[etc.]
X.5 LIST EXTENSIONS responses
This syntax defines the specific LIST EXTENSIONS responses for the
XXXXXXXX extension.
extension-descriptor /= xxxxxxxx-extension
xxxxxxxx-extension = %x58.58.58.58.58.58.58.58 ; "XXXXXXXX"
If it's felt helpful, then:
X.8 Imported non-terminals
These definitions are copied from [NNTP]. Any difference between the
documents is an error in this one.
then any non-terminals that are felt vital to understanding the syntax of
the extension.
Finally, there should be an analogue to Appendix C:
Appendix C. Summary of response codes
The text "Also generated by" indicates that the code is also defined
in [NNTP]. Generic response codes are not listed in this section.
Response code 266
Generated by: XXXXXXXX
Meaning: it worked
Response code 423
Also generated by: XXXXXXXX
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive at demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: <clive at davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc | |
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list