[NNTP] Working group last call

[Ken Murchison]

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:

> Ken Murchison said:
> 
>>This point keeps coming up, so obviously I'm not getting the text right. 
>> I'm trying to convey that MODE STREAM is not required in order to 
>>implement or use this extension.  MODE STREAM is deprecated in favor of 
>>CAPABILITIES.
>>
>>Perhaps I should start with:
>>
>>"If a server supports this extension and the optional MODE STREAM 
>>command ..."
> 
> 
> Okay, let me try again.
> 
> I understand that a client SHOULD use CAPABILITIES to determine if the
> extension is supported. A client should only use MODE STREAM if it's
> concerned about old implementations. However, that's not my point.
> 
> Let me ask the same question in two ways:
> 
> Version 1: can an implementation conforming to your specification
> NOT implement the MODE STREAM command?

Yes, that was the idea.


> Version 2: is the following allowed with a conforming server?
> 
>     [C] CAPABILITIES
>     [S] 101 Capability list:
>     [S] VERSION 2 
>     [S] READER LISTGROUP 
>     [S] LIST ACTIVE NEWSGROUPS
>     [S] STREAMING
>     [S] .
>     [C] MODE STREAM
>     [S] 501 Unknown mode STREAM

I think we'd like it to be since we're deprecating MODE STREAM, but this 
is probably an unrealistic goal in the short term for interop reasons.

Russ, how do you want to handle this?  Should we make MODE STREAM 
mandatory to implement for servers, but warn clients that this command 
should only be used with legacy servers, and that this command will be 
most likely removed from later versions of the specification?

-- 
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