[NNTP] [2505] CAPABILITIES indication of features not currently
available
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Tue Nov 30 01:51:10 PST 2004
Issue: do we provide a way for CAPABILITIES to advertise features that
aren't available right now but could be, or have been.
Ken Murchison said:
> 2505: I thought we had already decided that all of this "negative
> capability" business was too much. I'm opposed to this proposal.
It came back again in at least one of Russ's messages.
The reason for proposing it is that it addresses a number of issues:
* advertising "can only authenticate after TLS", "can do more SASL options
with TLS", "can only authenticate after MODE READER", and so on;
* indicating the authentication methods that were available after
successful SASL;
* indicating that the server is mode-switching;
and so on. Now we can come up with ad-hoc solutions for each of those, but
isn't it better to have a framework for it?
In particular, the present SASL stuff is an abomination - advertising a
capability as available with the secret understanding that that means it
*isn't* available - and goes directly against a MUST in the core
specification.
What is the objection to this? If it's the detail of the "-", "--", "-480"
stuff, then I'm happy to amend or drop that part. But what is wrong with
the basic principle of having a consistent way of saying "extension X wishes
to tell you that capability Y isn't currently available"?
--
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