lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (06/24/91)
Hi,
I would like the IETF-NNTP group to meet at the July/August IETF in
Atlanta to discuss the v2 draft, authentication issues, developments on
the SMTP/Mail side of the house, and news reader protocols.
I'm about 2/3 away through a rewrite, and I'm awaiting more information
from other sources in terms of authentication and whether or not to
expand newsreader functionality in the Transport Protocol.
One final thought (for the moment) - at some point it was suggested that
the OPTION command be eliminated in favor of additional commands, so
that turnarounds could be further reduced.
Comments?
Here is information about the upcoming meeting.
To: ietf@isi.edu
From: ietf-rsvp@nri.reston.va.us
Subject: Mailing 1 : IETF, July 29-Aug 2, 1991/Atlanta
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 10:53:32 -0400
Dear IETFers:
This is the first mailing of logistics for the upcoming IETF
(Jul. 29 - Aug. 2, 1991/ Atlanta). An Agenda and Directions will
follow at a later date. Please direct any questions to
ietf-rsvp@nri.reston.va.us. PLEASE NOTE: UNITED AIRLINES WILL
ACTIVATE THE IETF GROUP NUMBER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 11TH 3:00PM EST.
THE DELTA NUMBER HAS ALREADY BEEN ACTIVATED.
Included in this mailing are the following:
1. AT-A-GLANCE SHEET: A one page write-up of pertinent information
(i.e., Dates, Registration Info., Hotel,
Airline, Shuttle)
2. Registration Form: We are accepting payment by credit card and
check. Please be sure to read the form carefully
and provide complete information.
FYI...
Just a reminder that the quality of these meetings (and in
particular the Working Group technical *working* sessions) is
dependent upon the informed, constructive participation of the
individual attendees. Please come prepared.
Information on the current status and progress of the individual
Working Groups can be obtained in several ways:
1. Working Group objectives and notes from previous sessions are
available online (send to ietf-manager@nri.reston.va.us for retrieval
instructions).
2. Working Group objectives and notes from previous meetings are
also reproduced in the hardcopy Proceedings (to order, send to
proceedings@nri.reston.va.us).
3. Agendas and reading lists for Working Group meetings will also be
posted to the respective Working Group mailing lists.
LOOKING AHEAD....
The November 1991 IETF Meeting will be held in Santa Fe, NM. Our host for
this meeting will be John Morrison and Dale Land of Los Alamos National
Labs. The Spring 1992 IETF is tentatively scheduled to be hosted by
San Diego Supercomputer Center.
- -------------
21ST INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE Mailing Date : 6/10/91
AT-A-GLANCE Mailing Number: 1
DATE: July 29 - August 2, 1991
HOST(S): Caroline Cranfill
BellSouth Services
HOTEL/MEETING SITE: Hyatt Regency Atlanta
in Peachtree Center
265 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30301
(404) 577-1234 {fax:(404) }
150 Rooms reserved until July 5, 1991
$89.00/single or double
Specify: IETF or CNRI GROUP
ALTERNATE ACCOM: The Atlanta Hilton
255 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 222-2800
20 Rooms reserved until July 5, 1991
$89.00/single or double
Specify: IETF or CNRI Group
MESSAGES: TBD
PRE-REGISTRATION: Sunday, July 28, 1991
6pm - 8pm (reception during)
Hyatt Regency Atlanta
Room: TBD
REGISTRATION: Monday, July 29, 1991
8am - 9am
Hyatt Regency Atlanta
Room: TBD
ATTENDANCE FEE: PAYMENT BY CHECK ONLY: (see Registration Form)
$130.00 if received BY July 5, 1991
$150.00 if received AFTER July 5, 1991
AIRLINE: Delta Airlines (special rate roundtrip only)
1 (800) 221-1212 File No: T12112 (IETF)
We regret that discounted fares are not available
for international flights.
NUMBER WILL NOT BE United Airlines (special rate roundtrip only)
ACTIVATED UNTIL 1 (800) 521-4041 Meeting ID: 515CX (IETF)
TUES. 6/11 We regret that discounted fares are not available
3:00PM EST for international flights.
CAR RENTAL: Alamo Discounts available through Delta.
Hertz Discounts available through United.
AIRPORT:
SHUTTLE:
PARKING:
CLIMATE:
--------------
REGISTRATION FORM
21st Internet Engineering Task Force - Page 1 of 2
July 29 - August 2, 1991
Atlanta, GA
Please print or type:
Name (Mr/Dr/Ms)__________________________________________________________
Title____________________________________________________________________
Organization_____________________________________________________________
Address__________________________________________________________________
City_______________________________State______________Zip Code___________
Telephone______________________________Fax_______________________________
Email____________________________________________________________________
Please check a) and b) below so we can identify your organization type and
interest.
a) Organization Type ___HW/SW Vendor ___Government ___Network Provider
___University ___Other (_______________________)
b) Your interest in 21st IETF Meeting: ___Network Operator
___Network User ___Product Developer ___Researcher
___Other (________________)
Do you plan to attend the Sunday, July 28, 1991 evening reception?
YES___ NO___
$130.00 Registration postmarked by July 5, 1991
$150.00 ($130.00 + $20.00 late fee) Registration postmarked after July 5, 1991
Method of payment: ___AMEX ___VISA ___MC ___Diners ___Check enclosed
(U.S. dollars, drawn on a U.S. Bank), payable to:
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
Account No.____________________________ Expiration Date__________________
Cardholder Signature_____________________________________________________
Please return a copy of the Registration Form with your payment today to
take advantage of the reduced rate of $130.00 and mail to:
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
Accounting Department - 21st IETF Meeting
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091-5434
REGISTRATION FORM
21st Internet Engineering Task Force - Page 2 of 2
July 29 - August 2, 1991
Atlanta, GA
IMPORTANT:
1. Advance Registrations must be postmarked no later than July 5, 1991.
2. Register one person per form. No substitutions are allowed.
3. Request for refunds must be received by July 26, 1991.
4. Refund policy: Refunds are subject to a $20.00 service charge.
Late fees will not be refunded.
5. Your registration fee includes a copy of the Meeting's Proceedings,
Sunday evening reception (cash bar), and a daily continental
breakfast and coffee breaks.
Please contact (703) 620-8990 or (703) 620-0913 (Fax) for additional
information
or assistance. Direct all inquiries to: 21st IETF meeting - Atlanta.
Eliot Lear
[lear@turbo.bio.net]rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (06/24/91)
Is it really the case that the only new stuff in the NNTP protocol is Brian's original ideas? If so, that is a big mistake. -Syntax of "search" command is not good, or did we decide to leave it out? -I don't think we ever really reached consensus on the authentication, or did we? -I really REALLY want a "mode" command -- I have software in beta-test that could use this right now (see the archives, around April 20) -Elliot asked about flushing the "batch" command. Are we? Or what about Brian's suggestions of May 1? -What about "438 offer me this one later"? We must resolve these issues before we can say we're done. /r$
galvin@TIS.COM (James M Galvin) (06/24/91)
-I don't think we ever really reached consensus on the authentication, or did we? I, too, do not have the impression that consensus was reached. I looked back over the notes I did save (not all of them), and derived the following: 1. Host (or connection?) level authentication seems the most appropriate. A point that was not resolved was whether or not this should be mutual or just the "client" authenticating itself to the "server". 2. Confidentiality was briefly discussed, but it seems more appropriate at the newsgroup level. Since newsgroups are not defined at the NNTP level, this is probably a service for a higher layer. 3. The closest thing to consensus with respect to a mechanism was a number of suggestions to use id/password pairs. My opinion is this may be okay for now, while we wait for the CAT working group to do its thing. Kerberos was also suggested. This is my recollection and interpretation of what I saved. It could be wrong. Jim
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (06/24/91)
Rich, reader additions to the protocol are on hold until we see just how far we can get on an NNRP. I don't have any particular objections to the MODE command, other than that the default MODE needs to handle the old functionality. Among other things it would not require an additional port assignment. However, I am far more interested in what the reader MODE/protocol would look like, than how to get to it, at this point. Stan likes the idea of the OPTION command. As long as you can lump all the options together, I won't object, either. Brian's suggestion was to flush the OPTION command. Again, I'm in mid-rewrite so hang in there for just a bit longer... Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
Jim.Thompson@Central.Sun.COM (Jim Thompson) (06/24/91)
From ietf-nntp-request@turbo.bio.net Mon Jun 24 12:34:01 1991 From: Eliot <lear@turbo.bio.net> Rich, reader additions to the protocol are on hold until we see just how far we can get on an NNRP. I don't have any particular objections to the MODE command, other than that the default MODE needs to handle the old functionality. This assumes that whatever is listening on the other 'end' of the connections handles all the current requests. In this case, that is not true. In my opinion, the original spec errored in being to tied to a particular implimentation. Among other things it would not require an additional port assignment. Why should NNRP not be granted an additional port assignment? Heck, POP has three of 'em now! Stan likes the idea of the OPTION command. As long as you can lump all the options together, I won't object, either. Brian's suggestion was to flush the OPTION command. NNTP should be for transfering news. NNRP should be for reading news. As far as IMAGE, while it is true that changing into and back out of the '\r\n' line termination on Un*x, there is a simple solution for this as well. Don't transform the '\r\n' on input if you're just going to store the article. "But this breaks our storage model, because the newsreaders have direct access to the files!", someone will object. Time to catch up with technology, man. The current storage model is broken. Just ask anyone who attempts to keep 6 months of news on-line. Jim Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]