[NNTP] draft-ietf-nntpext-tls-nntp-03

[Ken Murchison]

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:

> Only two small points.
> 
> (1) Near the end of page 6 is the sentence "The client SHOULD send a LIST
> EXTENSIONS command as the first command after a successful TLS negotiation",
> with discussion of LIST EXTENSIONS in the next paragraph. I'm not sure of
> the point of that sentence and in particular the SHOULD: the previous
> sentence explains why you must forget any previous knowledge, and the next
> paragraph says that the extension list could change.

I addressed this a little in your other post.


> In particular, if you want to do TLS to protect core commands, there's no
> need to issue a LIST EXTENSIONS at all.

Huh?  I don't follow.  After TLS, the available auth mechanisms may 
change, and a client really should check for this.


> (2) I suggested a change to the last sentence of the first paragraph of
> 2.2.2.1. I've just realized I was slightly wrong - there are other commands
> (notably LIST EXTENSIONS) for whice 483 is not permitted. So change:

Good point.


>     further NNTP commands from the client (other than a QUIT command)
> 
> to:
> 
>     further substantive NNTP commands from the client (note that the 483
>     response is forbidden for some commands such as QUIT)
> 
> Alternatively, delete the "(other than a QUIT command)" comment entirely,
> relying on [NNTP] to make the point.

Either way is fine with me.  Russ?


> You might also want to add a LIST EXTENSIONS to the last example to show
> this.

I'll look at this.


-- 
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