IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ietf-nntp re: batch, streaming, Adding extensions?

Jonathan Grobe <grobe@netins.net> Tue, 13 August 1996 01:06 UTC

Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa14145; 12 Aug 96 21:06 EDT
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa14140; 12 Aug 96 21:06 EDT
Received: from PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15979; 12 Aug 96 21:06 EDT
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pheasant.ACADEM.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA02148 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 01:05:36 -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 BAA02144 for <ietf-nntp@PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM>; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 01:05:34 -0500
Received: from worf.netins.net (root@worf.netins.net [167.142.225.4]) by academ.com (8.7.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id UAA09333 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 20:05:19 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from worf.netins.net (grobe@worf.netins.net [167.142.225.4]) by worf.netins.net (8.7.5/8.7.2) with SMTP id UAA17029; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 20:05:08 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 20:05:06 -0500 (CDT)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@ietf.org
From: Jonathan Grobe <grobe@netins.net>
Reply-To: ietf-nntp@academ.com
To: NetWin Support <netwin@world.std.com>
cc: ietf-nntp@academ.com
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp re: batch, streaming, Adding extensions?
In-Reply-To: <199608130015.MAA22554@iconz.co.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.94.960812194945.16269A-100000@worf.netins.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Orig-Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

The only things which will be in the new standard are existing 
technology found in RFC977 and in Stan Barber's Common NNTP Extensions
plus the new extensions mechanism. 

nntp v2 will not be used.

Stan Barber is supposed to have a draft of the new standard ready
sometime this month (Stan, when will it be ready?).

If you want to discuss new technology the appropriate place to
do so is in the nntp-extensions list--which was set up for exactly
this purpose (subscribe at nntp-extensions-request@academ.com). 
I think it would be a good idea to present your proposed extensions there.

Jonathan Grobe <grobe@netins.net>  

On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, NetWin Support wrote:

> Hi,
>      First I'll appologize in advance if any of this has been covered 
> previously, I've read most of the historical messages but I might 
> have missed something.
> 
> re: nntp v2 specification, I am mystified as to why the 'batch' 
> command has been added instead of the reasonably widely accepted 
> and easy to implement 'takethis/check' protocol.   Or are both going
> to be implemented?
> 
> re: mechanism for adding extensions:
>        Has this been defined anywhere, it is mentioned in several 
> places but I couldn't find a proposal for it.  I would suggest we 
> need to get this defined in a hurry, so that those who want / need 
> extensions urgently can start doing it the right way rather than just 
> adding them willy nilly.
> 
> We have at least three extensions that we will be releasing in the 
> next month and it would be nice to try and get them to match in with
> the proposed standards.  I will discuss these in this group if this 
> is  the appropriate place, but I suspect it is not at this time.
> 
>            Chris Pugmire, NetWin Ltd (DNEWS Developer)
> 
>                 
> Customer Support
> http://netwinsite.com
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email