[NNTP] Misc changes

Jeffrey M. Vinocur jeff at litech.org
Tue Apr 26 18:57:17 PDT 2005


On Apr 26, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Charles Lindsey <chl at clerew.man.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> I don't like the idea of making NEWNEWS optional.

Can you say why this is, concretely?


>> could we say "The NEWNEWS command SHOULD be provided"?
>
> I have kind of a bleh feeling about that, since we don't say that about
> other things that are even more core to the protocol (POST, for 
> instance).

I agree with Russ here.  It's not a protocol issue by any means, and 
since we all know that some servers aren't going to provide it no 
matter what we say, client authors are still going to have to consider 
that possibility (and work around it or accept reduced functionality).

I would be fine with the document making an advisory statement to 
implementors that encourages implementation of NEWNEWS (and explains 
that it became optional only because, in the past, it was woefully 
inefficient).

-- 
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org




More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list