ietf-nntp DEBUG command & x9x (was: 9xx)
cheekai at SoftML.net
Fri Jul 28 12:45:14 PDT 2000
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Stan O. Barber wrote:
>>Based on this and other comment from you, then I would take it that you are in
>>the group that says that X9X should never be presented by a server under normal
I'm more in the group that says the DEBUG command should go
and let's work directly on clarifying the message spaces x9x
and x8x instead.
If I recall correctly, Russ made a suggestion
(Message-ID: <ylu2de5dfd.fsf at windlord.stanford.edu>)
on using x9x for any and all private uses (including debugging)
and x8x for authentication, to which Andrew also agreed.
I pointed out the lack of specifying what a client should
behave on receiving x9x messages in both RFC977 and this draft
(Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.1000725120021.1647B-100000 at one.softml.net>),
and suggested that clients treat all x9x responses as 500 errors.
Clive commented that its a particular case of a more general case
of what to do when client confronts an unexpected response.
Clive also suggested to make a best guess based on first digit.
(ok, it's a short summary, may miss out more elaborations.
Please refer to archived mails for details).
More information about the ietf-nntp