IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ietf-nntp Thoughts on renaming X commands

Stan Barber <sob@academ.com> Thu, 03 October 1996 19:39 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa20457; 3 Oct 96 15:39 EDT
Received: from PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20073; 3 Oct 96 15:39 EDT
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pheasant.ACADEM.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA28072 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 14:34:51 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: pheasant.ACADEM.COM: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-nntp using -f
Received: from academ.com (sob@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by pheasant.ACADEM.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA28068 for <ietf-nntp@PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM>; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 14:34:49 -0500
Received: (from sob@localhost) by academ.com (8.7.6/8.7.1) id OAA19365; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 14:34:48 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610031934.OAA19365@academ.com>
From: Stan Barber <sob@academ.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 14:34:48 CDT
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: Ben Polk <bpolk@netscape.com>, ietf-nntp@academ.com
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp Thoughts on renaming X commands
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

If we document it as XOVER and XPAT, then what is the purpose of having
the "X" command mechanism for non-standard extensions? There is absolutely
no reason why an implementor can't have XOVER and XPAT in a server
that complies with the draft as written.

If you are saying that we need to do this so that all the existing 
implementations can claim compliance, then I have to speculate about 
the purpose of the doing this work in the first place.

-- 
Stan   | Academ Consulting Services        |internet: sob@academ.com
Olan   | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob
Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email