headers
Robert Schuettler | 3 Jun 2002 14:50
Picon
Picon

ietf-nntp Discussion of draft-dfncis-netnews-admin-sys-04.txt

Hello everyone,

this is meant to sum up the points raised in discussion of the NAS draft
so far. Please let me know if I missed out on something vital.

o "wildmat" definition

The term "wildmat" is used on page 19 in the context of the LSTR
command. There is no explicit specification within the NAS draft but a
note that the term is used according to "wildmat(3) from libinn". If an
explicit definition is really necessary and wanted within the NAS
document, we could probably borrow it from section 5 of 
draft-ietf-nntpext-base-15.txt.

o authentication 

The GETA and GETP commands are the two commands that are intended for
server-server communication. They would trigger a NAS server to update
the data in its database if newer data is available. All other commands
are used by enduser-clients, so only GETA and GETP have a username
/ password authentication attached.

o amount of data created by GETA and GETP commands / diff option

The amount of data transmitted in a package does not really seem to be
that huge to me. It is not the actual FAQ, rule or netiquette text that
is transmitted after all but only the location where to find it. An
option to send only the things that have changed is a neat idea that
we should keep it in mind for a higher protocol level.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 4 Jun 2002 20:46
Picon
Picon

Re: ietf-nntp Discussion of draft-dfncis-netnews-admin-sys-04.txt

In <20020603125017.GA258721 <at> CIS.FU-Berlin.DE> Robert Schuettler <rober <at> cis.fu-berlin.de>
writes: 

>The term "wildmat" is used on page 19 in the context of the LSTR
>command. There is no explicit specification within the NAS draft but a
>note that the term is used according to "wildmat(3) from libinn". If an
>explicit definition is really necessary and wanted within the NAS
>document, we could probably borrow it from section 5 of
>draft-ietf-nntpext-base-15.txt.

That text is very long and tedious (and still possibly not final). It
would be safer to wait till the NNTP Ext draft is accepted and then refer
to the RFC.

In any case, you still have not addressed the question of why your
approach is the proper one to follow in the first place, as against, for
example using the DNS mechanism to distribute this information (as a group
in Spain are already doing), or else using the existing Netnews structure
to distribute the information. Anything invplving a brand new protocol and
a brand new port number needs some justification.

--

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl <at> clw.cs.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
ietf-nntp mailing list
ietf-nntp <at> academ.com
https://www.academ.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nntp
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Robert Schuettler | 20 Jun 2002 16:43
Picon
Picon

Re: ietf-nntp Discussion of draft-dfncis-netnews-admin-sys-04.txt

On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 06:46:45PM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:

> >note that the term is used according to "wildmat(3) from libinn". If an
> >explicit definition is really necessary and wanted within the NAS
> >document, we could probably borrow it from section 5 of
> >draft-ietf-nntpext-base-15.txt.
> 
> That text is very long and tedious (and still possibly not final). It
> would be safer to wait till the NNTP Ext draft is accepted and then refer
> to the RFC.

It would be easiest to just go ahead with the current wording. We can't
really wait for NNTP Ext to reach RFC status to refer to it from within
the NAS document as the project supporting the work on NAS (DFN-CIS)
will be running out at the end of next month. It will be much harder to
put in time and people after that - which is why we were hoping to
reach RFC status within the running project (it would also look nice in
our final report ;). It would be nice to be able to give people at
least an approximate date for the RFC status.

> In any case, you still have not addressed the question of why your
> approach is the proper one to follow in the first place, as against, for
> example using the DNS mechanism to distribute this information (as a group
> in Spain are already doing), or else using the existing Netnews structure
> to distribute the information. Anything invplving a brand new protocol and
> a brand new port number needs some justification.

I believe that this discussion has already taken place on the usefor-
list (March 2000). Instead of repeating it, let me just underline that
NAS does not claim to be the one "proper" attempt but is explicitly
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 21 Jun 2002 21:51
Picon
Picon

Re: ietf-nntp Discussion of draft-dfncis-netnews-admin-sys-04.txt

In <20020620144326.GA66232 <at> CIS.FU-Berlin.DE> Robert Schuettler <rober <at> cis.fu-berlin.de> writes:

>It would be easiest to just go ahead with the current wording. We can't
>really wait for NNTP Ext to reach RFC status to refer to it from within
>the NAS document as the project supporting the work on NAS (DFN-CIS)
>will be running out at the end of next month. It will be much harder to
>put in time and people after that - which is why we were hoping to
>reach RFC status within the running project (it would also look nice in
>our final report ;). It would be nice to be able to give people at
>least an approximate date for the RFC status.

There are still some issues regarding the HDR command. I had hoped to put
in some work on this but, as you may have observed, things are getting a
little busy on the Usefor list just now :-( .

--

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl <at> clw.cs.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
ietf-nntp mailing list
ietf-nntp <at> academ.com
https://www.academ.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nntp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Russ Allbery | 22 Jun 2002 20:36
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

ietf-nntp Where are we at?

So... where are we at with this standard?  It seems like we're overdue for
another draft.

I sent out draft text for HDR and haven't heard anything at all back about
it, so I assume that it's fine, although Charles just said he had some
issue that he hasn't had time to write up yet.  I know that people wanted
to have namespaces in it to get things like the article byte count, and
I'm happy to incorporate that into my proposal if someone writes the
language.

There are various pending issues noted at:

    <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/nntp/proposed/>

I've not heard anything more about those, so I'm assuming that people
generally agree with them.

Clive has replacement text for OVER pending; I noted some issues that I
had with it, but there wasn't much further discussion.  What's the status
of that?

It seems like this would be a good time to put out another draft, if for
no other reason than to serve as a synchronization point.

Stan, do you need for me to reformat my HDR proposal to use the same
layout as is currently used in the draft rather than the new command
format that Clive proposed (which I find more readable)?

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 23 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 24 Jun 2002 10:55
Picon
Picon

Re: ietf-nntp Where are we at?

In <ylbsa3w47k.fsf <at> windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra <at> stanford.edu> writes:

>So... where are we at with this standard?  It seems like we're overdue for
>another draft.

>I sent out draft text for HDR and haven't heard anything at all back about
>it, so I assume that it's fine, although Charles just said he had some
>issue that he hasn't had time to write up yet.  I know that people wanted
>to have namespaces in it to get things like the article byte count, and
>I'm happy to incorporate that into my proposal if someone writes the
>language.

An issue with the HDR command is that some implementations allow it to
work with any header, and others allow it to work only with a restricted
set of headers (usually the ones in the overview).

I don't think we can alter that situation, but I would like the LIST
EXTENSIONS to be able to indicate which headers it could cope with, by
allowing a parameter in its response, e.g.
    [S] HDR ALL
    [S] HDR AS_OVERVIEW
    [S] HDR header1,header2,header3

Then a smart client that wanted to find all occurrences of the X-FOOBAR
header could use the response to the LIST EXTENSIONS to determine whether
X-FOOBAR would work with HDR, and if not it could automatically fall back
to calling the HEAD command on every article.

I had hoped to write that up as an extension to Russ's text, but lack of
time has prevented it.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Russ Allbery | 26 Jun 2002 09:46
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: ietf-nntp Where are we at?

Stan O Barber <sob <at> academ.com> writes:

> Yes, we are overdue for another draft. I had intended to get one out at
> the end of April. Now, I am targeting the first weekend of July.

I have some time to work on this right now, so if there's anything
specific you need, please let me know.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
_______________________________________________
ietf-nntp mailing list
ietf-nntp <at> academ.com
https://www.academ.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nntp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stan O. Barber | 26 Jun 2002 10:21
Favicon
Gravatar

RE: ietf-nntp Where are we at?


Okey, I have reviewed all the items on your web site. Here are the ones I
think are ok without discussion:

023

026

027 with the additional comment that OVER and LIST OVERVIEW.FMT both must be
implemented if either is.
I would also note that some wording on how to clarify the whole issue of
LIST and its relatives would be welcome. There
was the suggestion that some wording might help, but I didn't see any.

029

030

034 (RFC 1939 influenced how I organized the NNTP document. I chose another
RFC that the IESG approved as a template for this document and that was the
RFC I chose. I will add clarifying text to the draft if that remains
confusing for people to figure out.)

035

037

_______________________________________________
ietf-nntp mailing list
ietf-nntp <at> academ.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Stan O. Barber | 26 Jun 2002 09:41
Favicon
Gravatar

RE: ietf-nntp Where are we at?

Yes, we are overdue for another draft. I had intended to get one out at the
end of April. Now, I am targeting the first weekend of July.

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-nntp-admin <at> academ.com [mailto:ietf-nntp-admin <at> academ.com]On
Behalf Of Russ Allbery
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 1:37 PM
To: ietf-nntp <at> academ.com
Subject: ietf-nntp Where are we at?

So... where are we at with this standard?  It seems like we're overdue for
another draft.

I sent out draft text for HDR and haven't heard anything at all back about
it, so I assume that it's fine, although Charles just said he had some
issue that he hasn't had time to write up yet.  I know that people wanted
to have namespaces in it to get things like the article byte count, and
I'm happy to incorporate that into my proposal if someone writes the
language.

There are various pending issues noted at:

    <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/nntp/proposed/>

I've not heard anything more about those, so I'm assuming that people
generally agree with them.

Clive has replacement text for OVER pending; I noted some issues that I
had with it, but there wasn't much further discussion.  What's the status
of that?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Stan O. Barber | 26 Jun 2002 18:36
Favicon
Gravatar

RE: ietf-nntp Where are we at?


See below for lines beginning with >

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-nntp-admin <at> academ.com [mailto:ietf-nntp-admin <at> academ.com]On
Behalf Of Russ Allbery
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 1:37 PM
To: ietf-nntp <at> academ.com
Subject: ietf-nntp Where are we at?

...

Clive has replacement text for OVER pending; I noted some issues that I
had with it, but there wasn't much further discussion.  What's the status
of that?

> Is that in the list on your site? If not, please put it there. That would
help me out.

...

Stan, do you need for me to reformat my HDR proposal to use the same
layout as is currently used in the draft rather than the new command
format that Clive proposed (which I find more readable)?

> Yes.

_______________________________________________
ietf-nntp mailing list
ietf-nntp <at> academ.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane