ietf-nntp LIST EXTENSION response 205 vs 215

Jack De Winter jack at wildbear.on.ca
Wed Feb 19 13:05:27 PST 1997


>>Then I would like to see them too returning something other than 215.
>
>According to the charter of the group, we are going to produce a 
>document that describes current practice, plus has the LIST 
>EXTENSIONS mechanism in it.  The current practice is that the 
>above commands return 215, so that is what the current practices 
>document should state.

Actually, it is the above plus anything that is broken.  For example,
a better definition of the AUTHINFO GENERIC mechanism is warranted,
as the original spec leaves a lot in doubt.  However, I agree with
Ben that debating what return code the above returns is not a
current practice and (from my POV) is not a bug in the original spec.

Remember, we want to come out with a good solid document in a small
amount of time, not nit pick over little things.  We can always come
up with an updated document after the initial charter of the WG has
been satisfied.

regards,
Jack

p.s. Does anyone have any idea when the newer versions of the drafts
for the BCP spec and the 977bis spec will be ready?
-------------------------------------------------
Jack De Winter - Wildbear Consulting, Inc.
(519) 576-3873		http://www.wildbear.on.ca/

Author of SLMail for 95 & NT (http://www.seattlelab.com/)



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list