[dcc2] Another New draft

[Dan Smith]

I have updated the draft to fix the errors you mentioned, the new version 
is available at the same location.

At 04:17 PM 3/26/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>Is there any particular reason why FILE, PORT and SIZE (and MULTI?) are 
>specified in all upper-case, different from the other tokens?

Yes, Case insensitive. I added it to the token description.

>Is there a good reason to force the application-specific tokens to be 
>after the connection tokens?

Nope, That is an error in the ABNF, all tokens should not be 
positional.  (Except perhaps for Accept?)

>   filepunct = %d33 %d35-41 %d43-36 %d61 %d64 %d91 %d93-95 %d123 %d125-126

Another ABNF error, fixed!

>The examples don't include the word "Publish" as required by the ABNF. 
>Which is wrong?

It isn't really needed, removed from the ABNF

>I found having examples of each part of the conversation useful, but as an 
>interested reader a full example conversation wouldn't hurt.

I added three basic examples, should there be more or more specific cases?

>>One thing to note is that we reference the CTCP specification, but it is 
>>not really a specification, just a newsgroup post.  To reference it in a 
>>draft, it should itself be a standard.  Should we formalize the CTCP 
>>protocol documentation?  And if so, would anyone like to help undertake 
>>the task of writing it as an Internet Draft?
>
>That would mean we would have to support it properly, wouldn't it? ;)

That is funny, but a good point.  Most of the formatting/quoting/tagging 
mentioned in the document is not implemented in most clients.  How should 
we go about standardizing the client to client protocol then?  Perhaps a 
I-D describing current practices?

Cheers!
Dan




---------------------------
Dan Smith
+1 608-213-2867
Algenta Technologies, LLC