[NNTP] draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming-02
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Mon Oct 18 03:44:07 PDT 2004
Andrew - Supernews said:
> What I'm saying is that I know of no cases in which it makes sense for
> a server to return a deferral after the article body in either IHAVE
> or TAKETHIS.
So your position is that the specification(s) should say something like:
If the server is unable to process the article immediately, or
runs into any problem when processing it, it will reject the
article and the client MUST NOT attempt to re-send it *EVER AGAIN*.
If you disagree with this, then you're saying there needs to be a "defer"
code.
If you agree with this then I'm afraid I simply can't support you. This is
a prime opportunity for articles to get lost (and don't mention the inkblot
algorithm; there are plenty of bottlenecks in the system and this RFC
doesn't only apply to global-Usenet).
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive at demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: <clive at davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc | |
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list