A few notes about NNTP compliance

[Russ Allbery]

Julien ÉLIE <julien at trigofacile.com> writes:

> * Summary: Reply codes other than x9x used for private extensions
>
> I think it is a "won't fix" because it would break existing
> implementations if we sent other reply codes for XGTITLE and XBATCH.

Agreed.

> * Summary: nnrpd doesn't return 423 errors when there is no overview info
>
> Renamed to "nnrpd doesn't return 420 errors for XOVER".
> 423 is properly implemented for OVER.
> I think it is now a "won't fix" because it would break existing
> implementations.

Yeah, as long as we do the right thing for OVER, we're okay there.

> I believe there are other things mentioned neither in doc/compliance-nntp
> nor in Trac (especially for innd, or even innfeed and utilities).
> Should all doc/compliance-nntp not marked as "won't fix" be put into Trac?
> The contrary (Trac -> doc/compliance-nntp) is perhaps not necessary.

compliance-nntp was another sort of ad-hoc to-do list that I was using
because we didn't have a real bug-tracking system.  At this point, I think
it's best to put everything into Trac.  This might be a good place to use
the Trac keyword capability and tag all these with compliance or rfc3977
or whatever seems best (I'd probably lean towards compliance), which will
make it easy to craft a search that returns all known compliance issues
and hence basically replaces that document.

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

    Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
     <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.