Re: ietf-nntp Clients should be able to set the Path

Chris Caputo <ccaputo@alt.net> Thu, 19 December 1996 19:02 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa11369; 19 Dec 96 14:02 EST
Received: from ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17071; 19 Dec 96 14:02 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) id MAA16203 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:53:36 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: academ2.academ.com: majordomo set sender to owner-ietf-nntp using -f
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA16198 for <ietf-nntp@ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM>; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:53:34 -0600 (CST)
Received: from baklava.alt.net (root@baklava.alt.net [207.17.118.9]) by academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id MAA15349 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:53:24 -0600 (CST)
Received: from baklava.alt.net (ccaputo@baklava.alt.net [207.17.118.9]) by baklava.alt.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA14758 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 10:53:20 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 10:53:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Caputo <ccaputo@alt.net>
To: ietf-nntp@academ.com
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp Clients should be able to set the Path
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.961219114427.23295D-100000@piano.synapse.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.93.961219103521.4547N-100000@baklava.alt.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

Usenet != NNTP

Debates about how Usenet should be run are generally non-technical but
involve policies that are technical.  Things like this should be
encompassed in a document describing the policies of Usenet.  This
document could make recommendations about things like whether POSTs can
have Path: lines or whether messages should have NNTP-Posting-Host:.  This
document would be the subject of mass debate and I'd further suggest that
such a document wouldn't even be in the realm of the IETF because it has
more to do with operations than engineering.  It could be a BCP, but it
would be difficult to get consensus. 

NNTP will be used widely in Intranets that have their own set of policies. 
I don't think we should preclude the ability for alternatives to Usenet to
be based on NNTP.

RFC977bis should strive to contain as little as possible about the actual
headers of messages.  They are more of an application detail than a
transport detail.

Chris Caputo
President, Altopia Corporation