ietf-nntp RE: Issues with new draft

Nat Ballou <NatBa@ims.microsoft.com> Fri, 05 September 1997 18:02 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa16787; 5 Sep 97 14:02 EDT
Received: from announcer.academ.com (majordomo@ANNOUNCER.ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.60]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid OAA06793 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 14:05:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by announcer.academ.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA08511; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:57:35 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by announcer.academ.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA08506 for <ietf-nntp@ANNOUNCER.ACADEM.COM>; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:57:33 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from eemail.microsoft.com (eemail.microsoft.com [131.107.1.244]) by academ.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA13192 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:57:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ims.microsoft.com - 131.107.1.244 by eemail.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:57:26 -0700
Received: from natba1 - 157.55.23.225 by ims.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:57:22 -0700
Reply-To: Nat Ballou <NatBa@ims.microsoft.com>
From: Nat Ballou <NatBa@ims.microsoft.com>
To: NNTP Working Group <ietf-nntp@academ.com>
Subject: ietf-nntp RE: Issues with new draft
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 10:52:49 -0700
Message-ID: <01bcba24$86acecc0$6537a8c0@natba1.dns.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1702.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1702.0
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

People have send me comments stating that my last message
was in-decipherable.  I apologize - here's a plain text version.

Nat

------------------

Beyond what others have posted, here are a few issues I'd
like to discuss:
 
1) Case sensitivity - listgroup says case insensitive; group 
says nothing; etc.  In essence, we should make sure that
case sensitivity is covered throughout the spec - a weakness
of RFC 977.
 
2) Transition Issues - 9.1.3 - why change the response codes
for authinfo?  I see no good reason for this, and I know of at
least two implementations that use the old codes.
 
Thanks,
 
Nat