RE: ietf-nntp Three proposals

["David Johnson (Exchange)" <[e-mail]>]

> ----------
> From:
> [e-mail][SMTP:[e-mail]] on behalf
> of Ben Polk[SMTP:[e-mail]]
> 
> 1. The new NNTP spec should not contain any optional features
> that are not negotiated through the extension mechanism.  
> 
Agreed.

> 2. Some of the new commands that are not in 977 should be
> manditory.  Things like DATE, XOVER, XPAT make no sense to
> have as optional at this point.  These manditory commands
> can either grouped into some uber NNTPV2 extension response
> that all servers must return, or are simply implied by the 
> support for the extension mechanism itself.  The former
> seems simpler, but either would work.
> 
I think we should be careful about which commands are made mandatory. In
my opinion XPAT is only marginally useful, so why should it be required?
I would like to see a list of the newsreaders that won't function
without XPAT support. If this list is some number greater than one then
maybe it should be required. On the other hand, I have seen many clients
that won't function without XOVER, so it is reasonable to make this a
required command.

> 3. We don't rename the X commands.  While I think some people
> thought this was the consensus of the people at the BOF, I'm 
> really not sure this is true.  There were certainly a number
> of people that voiced this opinion, but we sort of wandered
> from the general discussion of whether to rename them to the
> specifics of the XHDR/XPAT command, and I never felt like the
> larger issue was really decided.  I would have hummed very loudly
> indeed in oposition to this renaming.  
> 
I made the assertion at the BOF that "X" and "X-" naming conventions
don't work and I still stand by that. We should document the commands as
they exist. The only reliable way to prevent namespace problems is to
establish a registry for extensions.

- david

-----------------
David C. Johnson   <[e-mail]>
Program Manager -- Microsoft Exchange
Microsoft Corporation