IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ietf-nntp Initial draft FINALLY available

"chris (c.) lewis" <clewis@nortel.ca> Thu, 03 October 1996 20:41 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa22200; 3 Oct 96 16:41 EDT
Received: from PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22032; 3 Oct 96 16:41 EDT
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pheasant.ACADEM.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA28519 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 15:36:47 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: pheasant.ACADEM.COM: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-nntp using -f
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by pheasant.ACADEM.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA28515 for <ietf-nntp@PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM>; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 15:36:45 -0500
Received: from bnr.ca (x400gate.nortel.ca [192.58.194.73]) by academ.com (8.7.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id PAA20720 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 15:36:35 -0500 (CDT)
X400-Received: by mta bnr.ca in /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:04:50 -0400
X400-Received: by /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:04:38 -0400
X400-Received: by /PRMD=bnr/ADMD=telecom.canada/C=ca/; Relayed; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:04:36 -0400
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:04:36 +0000
X400-Originator: /dd.id=psd52384/g=usenet/i=u/s=support/@bnr.ca
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; <530o6k$fvo@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>]
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
Content-Identifier: Re: ietf-nntp...
From: "chris (c.) lewis" <clewis@nortel.ca>
Message-ID: <530o6k$fvo@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>
To: ietf-nntp@academ.com
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp Initial draft FINALLY available
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: nortel.list.ietf.nntp
Organization: Nortel
Lines: 34
Nntp-Posting-Host: bcarhbc0.bnr.ca
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

In article <Pine.BSI.3.93.961002001850.24587p-100000@baklava.alt.net>et>,
 <ccaputo@alt.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Stan Barber wrote:
>> > >> >9.1 AUTHINFO
>> > >> The AUTHINFO SIMPLE and AUTHINFO GENERIC commands are listed, but not the
>> > >> plain (and widely used) AUTHINFO USER|PASS command.  Is this intentional?
>> > >Yes.
>> > Why?  Isn't this what most software is using today?
>> There is no need for both AUTHINFO (original) and AUTHINFO SIMPLE since they
>> are so similar. We don't need both, so I chose one. If folks think that it
>> should be the other one, I don't have a problem with that.
>
>If the purpose of this document is to refine RFC977, I believe we should
>only add things that have come into widespread use since RFC977 was
>released. 
>
>With this in mind, I believe we should describe AUTHINFO USER|PASS and not
>AUTHINFO SIMPLE.  AUTHINFO GENERIC should continue to be included since
>there appears to be consensus that this is a good way to extend AUTHINFO. 

From another perspective, I don't believe AUTHINFO SIMPLE is actually
implemented.  Isn't it purely something that got lost when the older
NNTP-II spec got abandoned?  Both NNTP 1.5.x and INN 1.4 support
AUTHINFO USER/PASS, as do a number of newsreaders.  Which I think meets
the requirements for "at least two independent implementations".

Now, whether the two server implementations are exactly equivalent to
each other is a different matter (I'll be posting something about
GENERIC shortly).
-- 
"I can't stand this proliferation of paperwork.  It's useless to fight 
the forms.  You've got to kill the people producing them."
-- Vladimir Kabaidze, 64, General Director of Ivanovo Machine Building Works

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email