[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