nntp-extensions Renaming the SEARCH extensions

[Nat Ballou]

Brian,

The reason we put search in the latest release of
our product was so that client developers could
have a server to hit against.  Specifically, the NNTP
service bundled with beta 3 of the NT Option Pack
shipped a couple of months ago included search
support.  While it is already out of date (i.e., it
accepts the optional charset argument- which has
been eliminated in the latest search draft), I don't
view this as a big deal until there is something
more than a draft on search.  The real purpose is
to get clients thinking about search so that they
contribute to the search discussion.

Clients aren't likely to include search support until
we get a little further with the search. Also, getting a
syntax error against the Netscape server when you
use the 'SEARCH' extension name does not seem
like a big deal to me - probably as good as any other
error you can give until Netscape provides an
implementation of the search draft.

So, I'd prefer to leave the draft with 'SEARCH' as
the extension name.  Given the current rate of progress
on RFC977bis, I think Netscape will have plenty
of time to update their implementation.

Nat

P.S. - if you also want developers to hit against a
Netscape implementation but have problems with
release dates, how about putting up a early version
of the Netscape server on the Netscape Internet
site that does support the search draft?  Microsoft
will probably do this in the next month or so ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Hernacki <bhern at netscape.com>
To: Nat Ballou <natba at MICROSOFT.com>
Cc: nntp-extensions at academ.com <nntp-extensions at academ.com>
Date: Sunday, November 02, 1997 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: nntp-extensions Renaming the SEARCH extensions


>Nat Ballou wrote:
>> It turns out that Microsoft will ship in the next week an
>> implementation of the search draft that will use the
>> extension name SEARCH.  This release has
>> been out in beta for several months using the SEARCH
>> extension name, since this has been the extension
>> name used in all versions of the search draft.
>>
>> As I'm sure there will be other changes to the search
>> draft both as a result of RFC977bis work as well as
>> discussions of the search draft on the full mailing list, I view
>> this as a minor issue.  Specifically, both Netscape and
>> Microsoft will likely have to release another update to cover
>> changes as a result of these discussions.
>
>Sounds like the same lines I was thinking along. We'll update our server
>and clients once SEARCH is official.
>
>Unless some really objects, let's change the name of the extension and
>reccomend that no one implement with that name until the draft is
>finalized.
>
>--brian