[NNTP] Re: Version numbers

[Mark Crispin]

I strongly suggest that before even contemplating a version number 
mechanism such as Clive proposes, that you look into the experience of 
other protocols.  In particular:

. Why is the MIME version number forever fixed at 1.0?

. Why is the MIME version number forever fixed at 4rev1?  [Hint: read the
   next question.]

. Why do the IMAP people shudder whenever they refer to the transition
   from 4 to 4rev1?  Does much IMAP client software actually work with a 4
   server?

. Why do HTTP people shudder when asked about HTTP versioning?

In my experience, a version number facility does nothing except to add 
substantial complexity and open the door to mischief.

What we need is One True definition of NNTP, an indicator of compliance 
with this One True definition, and perhaps a slight crack left open for 
extensions.  We need to *abolish* the myriad non-interoperable variants 
that currently exist, not bless them.  We need to *simplify* the requires 
on clients, not make them worse.

NNTP is a dinky stupid little protocol.  If it was a car, it would be a 
Yugo.  It does not need Ferrari gauges.  We can try to make this Yugo be 
reliable (unlike the car...) and easy to implement.  We're not going to 
accomplish this with complex versioning.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.