Re: ietf-nntp XHDR versus XPAT

Ben Polk <bpolk@netscape.com> Sat, 12 October 1996 20:53 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa20604; 12 Oct 96 16:53 EDT
Received: from PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13235; 12 Oct 96 16:52 EDT
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pheasant.ACADEM.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA12186 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 15:46:44 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: pheasant.ACADEM.COM: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-nntp using -f
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by pheasant.ACADEM.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA12182 for <ietf-nntp@PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM>; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 15:46:42 -0500
Received: from hedgehog.mcom.com (h-207-1-136-17.netscape.com [207.1.136.17]) by academ.com (8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id PAA11489; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 15:46:41 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from bpolk.mcom.com ([207.1.137.51]) by hedgehog.mcom.com (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA26200; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 13:46:08 -0700
X-Sender: bpolk@pdmail2.mcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: USENET news manager <newsmaster@ucs.cam.ac.uk>, ietf-nntp@academ.com
From: Ben Polk <bpolk@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp XHDR versus XPAT
Cc: sob@academ.com
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 13:46:08 -0700
Message-ID: <19961012204608.AAA26200@bpolk.mcom.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

At 09:34 PM 10/12/96 +0100, USENET news manager wrote:

>If we were planning an ideal world from scratch, it would be fine to say
>that since one proposed command was a superset of another, the less powerful
>one isn't needed. When the less powerful command has been around longer and
>newsreaders expect to find it, I don't think it can be ignored and suggest
>it needs to be retained (with the same considerations applying to it having
>an X-name as for XOVER).

I think John makes a convincing case that both XPAT and XOVER should
be documented in the RFC.  Stan?