IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ietf-nntp My notes from the NNTP WG meeting at the 37th IETF

Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> Tue, 17 December 1996 20:12 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa16555; 17 Dec 96 15:12 EST
Received: from ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21082; 17 Dec 96 15:12 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) id OAA05193 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:08:49 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: academ2.academ.com: majordomo set sender to owner-ietf-nntp using -f
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA05188 for <ietf-nntp@ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM>; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:08:47 -0600 (CST)
Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66]) by academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id OAA19651 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:08:45 -0600 (CST)
Received: from eleanor.innosoft.com ("port 49391"@ELEANOR.INNOSOFT.COM) by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.0-8 #8694) id <01ID46UGYQS2A8C9QW@INNOSOFT.COM> for ietf-nntp@academ.com; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 12:08:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 12:08:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp My notes from the NNTP WG meeting at the 37th IETF
In-reply-to: <0149a28401810c6IMSMAIL@ims.microsoft.com>
To: ietf-nntp@academ.com
Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961217120041.13274A-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

> From: Stan Barber <sob@owlman.academ.com>
> It was decided to remove AUTHINFO GENERIC and replace it with AUTHINFO 
> USER/PASS.

There is a short unwritten list of things which all IETF protocols need to 
address before they go standards track.  The three items which I know
belong in the list are:
  * Strong Authentication
  * Extension Mechanism
  * Internationalization (just use ISO-8859-1 doesn't count)

Fixing these problems are things which really should be done in the
base document, IMHO.  I suspect the area directors would agree.  So
removing "AUTHINFO GENERIC" from the base spec isn't an option (although
I'd support replacing AUTHINFO SIMPLE with AUTHINFO USER/PASS).

In addition, I think this group needs to face the i18n problem and solve
it, as painful as that may be.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email