[NNTP] LIST EXTENSIONS and an NNTPv2 capability
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Tue Nov 2 03:29:58 PST 2004
Ken Murchison said:
> I think where we diverge is that the NNTPv2 proposal follows the KISS
> principal and only solves the existing problem(s); by putting a line in
> the sand w.r.t. base functionality and existing extensions which we are
> standardizing. Your proposal wants to try to solve any problems with
> extensions moving forward.
Yes, that's a key difference.
> 1) Based on past history of IMAP/POP3/SMTP, few, if any, extensions
> will have their functionality changed in any significant way.
>
> 2) If the functionality *is* changed in a drastic, non-backwards
> compatible way, then a new extension should be advertised rather than
> trying to wedge it into the existing extension.
>
> 3) If the previous two assumptions turn out to be false, then we can
> always address this issue at a later time. The existing LIST EXTENSIONS
> syntax already allows for extension labels to take arguments, which
> could be used for versioning and/or enabled/disabled flags.
Okay. Furthermore, if we have reserved characters (as in the separate
proposal) then these can be used to introduce such a change as well.
>> My concerns, as explained in my previous messages, split into two areas:
>> (1) The ability to handle variations - version numbers - of extensions.
>> This *will* happen to lots of protocols, even if it hasn't happened yet.
> I agree that functionality *may* change for certain extensions, but my
> guess is that the WGs responsible for the other protocols would just
> create a new extension or separate extension label/capability.
I'm not convinced that's the right approach, but I appear to be pretty much
alone at present on this.
>> (2) NNTP's unique (as far as I know) concept of "extensions that aren't
>> available until you do something separate".
[...]
> I don't see this being an issue for clients.
[...]
> If we're interested in saving roundtrips, then we could always look at
> Mark's proposal (which I haven't seen get to the list yet) of allowing
> relevant responses to carry extension info.
I don't think this will work like this, but it's certainly worth thinking
through. Separate thread?
--
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