[ietf-nntp] Re: SASL capability

[Russ Allbery]

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

>> I've now had time to work through the draft. I'm still at the "test the
>> concepts" stage rather than the "copy-editing" stage.

>> "#3" means "paragraph 3".

>> Section 2#3: I don't like the separate SASL response to LIST
>> EXTENSIONS.  This implies that there are two separate extensions, and
>> there aren't. It just doesn't fit the @@@@. Instead of that, what's
>> wrong with:

>>     AUTHINFO USER SASL:DIGEST-MD5,GSSAPI,PLAIN,EXTERNAL

> I have no problems with this, or any variant.  Two variants which come
> to mind would be:

> AUTHINFO USER SASL(DIGEST-MD5,GSSAPI,PLAIN,EXTERNAL)

> AUTHINFO USER SASL=DIGEST-MD5 SASL=GSSAPI SASL=PLAIN SASL=EXTERNAL

> The latter is similar to the IMAP capability response.

I vote for the latter just because I think it's the easiest to parse.  You
can just split on whitespace (like you always do with NNTP stuff) and then
look for SASL=<some mech you like>.  The others all require separately
splitting on commas.

> Does anyone have any issues eliminating the separate "SASL" capability?

I don't.

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