[dcc2] CTCP draft : comments needed

[codemastr]

Though this isn't really part of this ml, I think it's on topic enough to
mention CTCP here :-)

The first thing I noticed about that draft is you didn't include CTCP TIME.
That seems to be much more common than SOURCE so I think it should be added.
Also, perhaps the common CTCP SCRIPT should be added as well? It'd be nice
if there was a standardized way for a script to identify itself :)

Also, I didn't see it mentioned, shouldn't it say somewhere that multiple
replies can be generated to a single request? Sometimes even with a
different "response" CTCP than the request was for. Meaning, some scripts
will add a second VERSION reply with their script info, and some scripts
will tack on a SCRIPT reply when a VERSION is requested.

I'd be glad to go through the entire thing to search for typos/grammar
errors, but do you by any chance have a plain text version of the draft?
That way, rather than having to make a list of "you spelled this wrong" I
can send you a diff file :-)

I also have a question. With regard to including the algorithm, is there
anything special (legally) that needs to be done for that? I'm sure people
are going to just copy/paste that algorithm. And then that means you run
into licensing issues. I'm just wondering if anyone knows if there are any
specific rules for including code in an RFC.

Lastly, I think it is a good idea to add a "security considerations"
section. First off, it is required in RFCs. Even if it says "there are no
security concerns," it still has to be there. Second, there are some real
security concerns :P I think it would be wise to mention that CTCPs are
often used as a method of flooding a client because they result in an
automatic reply. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that a client implement some
form of flood control with regard to CTCPs.

-- codemastr
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Szymon Stefanek" <pragma at kvirc.net>
To: "DCC2 Working Group List" <dcc2 at dcc2.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:55 AM
Subject: [dcc2] CTCP draft : comments needed


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all.

Some time ago we had the problem of referencint the CTCP protocol
in the DCC2 spec since it was not an official Internet Draf document.

In my spare time I have tried to write down the formal CTCP specification in
the form of an Interned Draft.

The document is not yet finished and may still contain errors or omissions.
I'm also not a native english thus there are surely spelling/syntax errors
and
most of the sentences can be probably put in a nicer form.

I'd be glad if some native english speaker could revisit the document and
make the necessary corrections.

I have tried to describe the most common current implementations, simplify
the
original protocol specification by stripping down the useless parts and
finally provide the sample encoding and decoding algorithms.

The html version of the draft is available at:
http://www.kvirc.net/ctcp.html
and the xml source is at:
http://www.kvirc.net/ctcp.xml

Comments and suggestions are needed :)

- -- 

Szymon Stefanek

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
- -
- - Opportunity favors the prepared mind.
- -
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAr2n6Ru+qkQYW8QERAmsQAJ403W+mnivYGevXgW3Nm4qByySt8ACggo6Q
dmsWwEzso5M1srWx6g+OP7k=
=xNbW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
dcc2 mailing list
dcc2 at dcc2.org
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/dcc2