IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ietf-nntp Initial draft FINALLY available

Ben Polk <bpolk@netscape.com> Wed, 02 October 1996 05:15 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa19148; 2 Oct 96 1:15 EDT
Received: from PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02145; 2 Oct 96 1:15 EDT
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pheasant.ACADEM.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id AAA22927 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 00:00:35 -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 AAA22923 for <ietf-nntp@PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM>; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 00:00:34 -0500
Received: from hedgehog.mcom.com (h-207-1-136-17.netscape.com [207.1.136.17]) by academ.com (8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA15956; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 00:00:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from bpolk.mcom.com ([207.1.137.51]) by hedgehog.mcom.com (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA15657; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 22:00:00 -0700
X-Sender: bpolk@pdmail2.mcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Stan Barber <sob@academ.com>, ietf-nntp@academ.com
From: Ben Polk <bpolk@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp Initial draft FINALLY available
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 22:00:00 -0700
Message-ID: <19961002050000.AAA15657@bpolk.mcom.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

At 11:37 PM 10/1/96 CDT, 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?


>> Hmmmm.  A couple of questions.  First, why is this command renamed from 
>> XOVER? 
>X commands are not part of the spec. 

Can we consider explicitly supporting some subset of the X commands
in the spec?  Is the problem with including them in this spec and
prohibiting their use as local extensions an aesthetic one, or is
there some more concrete reason to require everyone to make this
change? 

>XHDR is just a subset of XPAT. There is no need for both.

Ok.

>I was thinking that BATCH could be another reference added after the spec
>using the new extension mechanism. 

Sounds fine.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email