rra at stanford.edu
Fri Jan 26 11:09:17 UTC 2001
Olaf Titz <olaf at bigred.inka.de> writes:
>> That's mildly unfortunate... it wouldn't add much more to the bytes
>> sent to add "CANCEL " to the beginning of each line, and I think it
>> would make it easier to get standardized down the road. Should we
>> consider that?
> Then we could as well skip MODE CANCEL and make CANCEL a "regular" NNTP
> command. This is perhaps the best solution, as it elevates the whole
> thing from "quick hack" to "semi-standard" :-) (It also saves us the
> additional CScancel state.)
Well... hm. I liked the MODE CANCEL idea because we could add additional
commands down the road to negotiate things like what cancel streams one
wants, or exchange authentication for the streams, or something. Plus it
gives the server a clear place to say "sorry, I don't support that."
But maybe it's not really necessary.
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the inn-workers