Re: ietf-nntp Three proposals

["Clive D.W. Feather" <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] said:
>> 3. We don't rename the X commands.  While I think some people
>> thought this was the consensus of the people at the BOF, I'm 
>> really not sure this is true.

> I think that if we're not going to formally rename the X-commands then we
> should remove the wording about X-commands at all. I see two interesting
> points here.  One is that I had always understood that the X-commands were
> for experimental use, however, the draft replacement for 977 indicates
> that this is actually for local use only.  I believe that this has more
> merit than for experimental use, but I'm still not totally convinced of
> the utility of the mechanism.

I had always assumed that the X notation here was like the one in 822:
names beginning X will never be used in standards, whereas other names are
picked at the implementer's risk.

>> I don't think we will gain anything of value by changing the 
>> name to counter the high cost of changing dozens of implementations.
> As I stated before, the only value I see in it is that the document is
> more self-consisant with the commands as OVER instead of XOVER.  If we
> decide that the entire X command mechanism is of of little utility then
> lets chunk that and keep the X-commands.

I believe we *should* rename:

(1) We keep the promise implied, if not made, in 977.

(2) We can fine-tune the semantics of a command (as we did with HDR
yesterday) without screams of "your XOVER isn't the same as my XOVER").

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather    | Associate Director  | Director
Tel: [phone] | Demon Internet Ltd. | CityScape Internet Services Ltd.
Fax: [phone] | <[e-mail]>   | <[e-mail]>