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.