Re: A small change suggested
Peter Eriksson <pen@lysator.liu.se> Mon, 07 September 1992 10:52 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08995; 7 Sep 92 6:52 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08991; 7 Sep 92 6:52 EDT
Received: from ietf.NRI.Reston.Va.US by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10687; 7 Sep 92 6:55 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08986; 7 Sep 92 6:52 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08982; 7 Sep 92 6:52 EDT
Received: from lysator.liu.se by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10655; 7 Sep 92 6:54 EDT
Received: from robin.lysator.liu.se by lysator.liu.se with SMTP (5.65c8/1.34/Lysator-3.1) id AA11995; Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:54:47 +0200 (rfc931-sender: pen@robin.lysator.liu.se)
Received: by robin.lysator.liu.se (5.65c8/1.34/Lysator-3.1) id AA14386; Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:53:40 +0200 (rfc931-sender: pen@robin.lysator.liu.se)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 12:53:31 -0000
From: Peter Eriksson <pen@lysator.liu.se>
To: Anders Andersson <andersa@mizar.docs.uu.se>
Subject: Re: A small change suggested
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 7 Sep 92 11:07:34 +0200
Cc: ident@NRI.Reston.VA.US
Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.0.715863211.pen@robin.lysator.liu.se>
>Peter writes: >>into something saying that the tokens generated by a server must >>use uppercase and that a client should be prepared to handle both >>upper and lowercase characters? > >While I agree that there is little point in allowing the server to >use lower- or mixed case, I don't see how fixing that and still >requiring clients to handle either case is an improvement? That Well. I like the idea of "being liberal in what you accept, and restrictive of what you send out". Suppose the Ident data is transmitted over a line that converts all uppercase characters to lowercase.... (Not very likely :-) >only means that client implementations will need extra code just >to suit the specification, not to suit actual usage. A bad idea... >Maybe your point is that requirements on the client could be eased >in a new edition of this RFC sometime in the future? Hmm... Yes, one would have to use a stricmp() or strcasecmp() (or whatever the case insensitive string compare is called) instead of strcmp(). Not a big deal really... The point is that it would remove an incompatibility with RFC931 and it's a pretty small change really. (It just adds the fact that a server should send uppercase characters). >Also, I'm a little surprised at this suggestion at this late hour, >as I thought that for all practical purposes, discussion of the draft Yes, I know. I just though I'd mention it anyway. >was closed when submitted to the IESG? In case it isn't, then I'd >support the part about restricting the server, and I'd add that we >ease the requirements on clients in the corresponding fashion. >However, I don't think this change is important enough to wreak >havoc with the drafting process, if that's what's required. I don't think that either. If it's completely impossible to fix things like this then it's no big deal for me either. >You tell me; I don't know. /Peter Peter Eriksson pen@lysator.liu.se Lysator Academic Computer Society ...!uunet!lysator.liu.se!pen University of Linkoping, Sweden I'm bored. Flame me.
- A small change suggested Peter Eriksson
- Re: A small change suggested Anders Andersson
- Re: A small change suggested Peter Eriksson
- Re: A small change suggested Anders Andersson
- Re: A small change suggested Mike StJohns
- Re: A small change suggested Daniel J. Bernstein