[NNTP] Fwd: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming-05

[Russ Allbery]

"Andrew - Supernews" <andrew at supernews.net> writes:
>>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:

>  Russ> The difference with CHECK, and the thing that it allows you to
>  Russ> do that IHAVE doesn't (and TAKETHIS doesn't) is that you can
>  Russ> prevent a host from ever receiving an article by repeatly
>  Russ> claiming you're going to send it with CHECK and then never
>  Russ> sending it.

> It's simple to protect against this. What I do is: a precommit entry for
> the article can only be created by the _first_ IHAVE, CHECK or TAKETHIS
> command to mention the message-id. If that entry is then not committed
> within the timeout and it expires, then we _keep it_ in the precommit
> cache as an expired entry, and further IHAVEs or CHECKs for it, from any
> source, will return a "yes, we want the article" response.

That's a good technique.  I guess the question that I have is should we
say something about it in the document (probably not to this degree of
specificity but at least to the degree of giving some general advice)?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>