Re: ietf-nntp Thoughts on renaming X comman

[Evan Champion <[e-mail]>]

Stan Barber wrote:
> 
> > So, my vote would be to rename the attributes and change the section
> > regarding naming extensions with an X.
> 
> Please propose the text you are suggesting for the rewrite.

I dug up the draft and read through the extensions section to make sure
I was writing something that would fit in to what you already stated,
and found the following:

'In addition, any NNTP keyword value that starts with an
upper or lower case "X" refers to a local NNTP service
extension, which is used through bilateral, rather than
standardized, agreement. Keywords beginning with "X" may
not be used in a registered service extension.

Any keyword values presented in the NNTP response that do
not begin with "X" must correspond to a standard,
standards-track, or IESG-approved experimental NNTP
service extension registered with IANA.  A conforming
server must not offer non "X" prefixed keyword values
that are not described in a registered extension.'

From my reading of that, XPAT/XOVER were wrongly named in the
beginning...

1.  they are implemented in servers that I assume want to be
NNTP-conforming, and no NNTP-conforming servers may contain X commands.

2.  they are certainly not local modifications used only with bilateral
agreement.

and if that section of the draft is maintained (and as I rather like
that section, I most certainly think it should be maintained :-), the
whole debate over whether the commands should be renamed seems to be
pointless.  The draft simply doesn't permit them to be named as they
are.

I think that the servers should be modified to accept the old 'X'
commands but not to advertise them.  Only the non-'X' versions should be
listed in such things as 'help' etc.

Evan
--
Evan Champion            * Director, Network Operations
mailto:[e-mail] * Directeur, Exploitation du reseau
http://www.synapse.net/  * Synapse Internet