[NNTP] LIST EXTENSIONS (again)

Ken Murchison ken at oceana.com
Thu Nov 4 11:43:54 PST 2004


Clive D.W. Feather wrote:


>>>Approach C is my preference and matches (e.g.) HTTP. I only suggested an
>>>alternative because people choked on the major.minor idea previously.
>>
>>A and C seem to be functionally identical to me and just differ in the 
>>syntax.
> 
> 
> In A, case 2, the client needs to know that 4321 exists and is upwards
> compatible; otherwise it will barf when it meets a 4321 server. In C, a
> 2.0 client automatically knows that 2.1 is upwards compatible.

I think you're splitting hairs here.  Why does a 2.0 client know that 
2.1 is upwards compatible?  Just because of the version number?  Whether 
it seems obvious or not given your choice of syntax, it still MUST be 
explicitly document somewhere that 2.1 retains 2.0 functionality (AFAIC 
2.0 and 2.1 are still meaningless tokens at a protocol level).  The same 
would be true in the A case, RFC 4321 MUST explicitly state that it 
retains RFC 3977 functionality.  In either case, the client knows this 
because the author read the specs and programmed accordingly.


-- 
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



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list