Re: ietf-nntp Feedback on the 9/3 nntpext.

Brian Hernacki <bhern@netscape.com> Thu, 04 September 1997 20:40 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa17235; 4 Sep 97 16:40 EDT
Received: from announcer.academ.com (majordomo@ANNOUNCER.ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.60]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid QAA03709 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:43:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by announcer.academ.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA03640; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:39:48 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by announcer.academ.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA03634 for <ietf-nntp@ANNOUNCER.ACADEM.COM>; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:39:47 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from netscape.com (h-205-217-237-47.netscape.com [205.217.237.47]) by academ.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA03636 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:39:45 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from fusion.mcom.com (fusion.mcom.com [205.217.255.82]) by netscape.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA04126 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netscape.com ([205.217.228.45]) by fusion.mcom.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.01) with ESMTP id 392 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:39:13 -0700
Message-ID: <340F1BBD.403B5763@netscape.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 13:36:13 -0700
From: Brian Hernacki <bhern@netscape.com>
Organization: Netscape, Floating Point Division
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02b8 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.5 sun4u)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-nntp@academ.com
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp Feedback on the 9/3 nntpext.
References: <2FBF98FC7852CF11912A0000000000010581D2EB@DINO>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

Larry Osterman (Exchange) wrote:
> 
>         ----------
>         From:  Brian Hernacki [SMTP:bhern@netscape.com]
>         Sent:  Thursday, September 04, 1997 10:13 AM
>         To:  ietf-nntp@academ.com
>         Subject:  ietf-nntp Feedback on the 9/3 nntpext.
> 
>         Here is some feedback on the 9/3 draft:
> 
>         4.
>                 o The miminum timeout is required to be 10 minutes. I
> don't
>         think the RFC should specify a required minimum.
>         *******
>         I disagree - the RFC SHOULD specify a required minimum to allow
> clients to know how often they should poll the server to keep their
> sessions alive.  This is consistant with the what is done for POP3 and
> IMAP4.
> 
>         In particular, it's totally acceptable for a server to NOT
> implement timeouts, however for a server that DOES implement timeouts,
> clients need to know a minimum value below which they won't get > dinged.

For most servers, I suspect not implementing tineouts isn't an option.
Given that, I'd hate to admin a server where I was forced to allow idle
users to consume resources for 10 minutes. If we must have a timeout,
then we should make the minimum sufficiently low. I'd settle for three
minutes.



>         10.1
>                 o This section specifies that the server should use the
> "first
>         unused number" for arriving articles. We may want to clairfy
> this to say
>         "next sequential unused number".
> 
>         ****
>         If we change this wording, I'm concerned that clients may expect
> that article numbers are monotonicly increasing, instead of strictly
> increasing.  This becomes relevant if a message arrives, and is then
> canceled, a client may be confused when it sees a hole in the article
> id's.

But "first unused" could be read so as to include numbers available
lower than the high water mark.


--brian