IETF Logo Mail Archive

ietf-nntp Issues with new draft

Nat Ballou <NatBa@ims.microsoft.com> Thu, 04 September 1997 15:24 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa10319; 4 Sep 97 11:24 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 LAA02431 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:27:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by announcer.academ.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA02565; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:21:27 -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 KAA02560 for <ietf-nntp@ANNOUNCER.ACADEM.COM>; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:21:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from eemail.microsoft.com (eemail.microsoft.com [131.107.1.244]) by academ.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA01028 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:21:24 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ims.microsoft.com - 131.107.1.244 by eemail.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:21:29 -0700
Received: from natba1 - 157.55.23.225 by ims.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:21:28 -0700
Reply-To: Nat Ballou <NatBa@ims.microsoft.com>
From: Nat Ballou <NatBa@ims.microsoft.com>
To: NNTP Working Group <ietf-nntp@academ.com>
Subject: ietf-nntp Issues with new draft
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 08:17:03 -0700
Message-ID: <01bcb945$99568f00$e117379d@natba1.dns.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01BCB90A.ECF7B700"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1702.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1702.0
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

Beyond what others have posted, here are a few issues I'd
like to discuss:

1) Case sensitivity - listgroup says case insensitive; group 
says nothing; etc.  In essence, we should make sure that
case sensitivity is covered throughout the spec - a weakness
of RFC 977.

2) Transition Issues - 9.1.3 - why change the response codes
for authinfo?  I see no good reason for this, and I know of at
least two implementations that use the old codes.

Thanks,

Nat

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email