[dcc2] Another New draft

[Jesse McGrew]

At 09:33 PM 3/26/2004 -0800, Dan Smith wrote:
>At 04:17 PM 3/26/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>>>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?

Well, we could just remove the reference to the CTCP spec and describe the 
format of a DCC2 message as a PRIVMSG/NOTICE containing \001 DCC2 <command> 
[<space> <parameter> ...] \001. Writing a draft of the current CTCP 
practices also sounds good, and it'd be good to find out exactly which 
features of the "official" CTCP spec are supported by which clients.

We should take care not to imply that the more baroque features of the CTCP 
spec (quoting, putting more than one CTCP request on the same line, etc.) 
will work with DCC2. At least in the case of my client, supporting those 
features would require a major overhaul of how CTCP requests are parsed and 
handled by scripts.

Jesse