[NNTP] Extension snapshots 2
Ken Murchison
ken at oceana.com
Fri Jan 7 10:27:09 PST 2005
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:
>
>>Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:
>
>
>>>Actually, given this whole thing is aimed at solving one very restricted
>>>problem, how about being prescriptive:
>
>
>>> The client MUST NOT send this command, and the server MUST NOT
>>> advertise the MODE-READER capability, after any other command except
>>> CAPABILITIES has been used in the session.
>
>
>>Hm. It's more complexity for the server to keep an internal state flag
>>and know if other commands have been used in the session. That part of
>>this is kind of ugly; if it weren't for that, I'd like the idea.
>
>
> And, actually, even worse than that, this says that the output of
> CAPABILITIES may change in circumstances other than the places we've
> documented that explicitly (AUTHINFO, STARTTLS, and MODE READER). I don't
> think that's a good idea; the CAPABILITIES output shouldn't vary except as
> a result of specific commands that perform major state changes and are
> documented as possibly changing the server capabilities.
What if we said something like this instead:
The client MUST NOT send this command, and the server MUST NOT
advertise the MODE-READER capability, if the server is already in the
"reader" state (designated by the advertisement of the READER
capability), or if a privacy or security command has been issued
successfully.
--
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