ietf-nntp DEBUG command x9x (was: 9xx)

[Lee Kindness]

Clive D.W. Feather writes:
 > Lee Kindness said:
 > >> Because the present NNTP spec says nothing about the fourth character. So
 > >> there's no reason it couldn't be a minus.
 > > On page 6 of rfc-977:
 > >    Parameters are separated from the numeric response code
 > >    and from each other by a single space.
 > Hmm. This doesn't cover the case where there are no parameters (which is
 > what happened in my examples).

I admit it's not very clear, however all current implementations
separate the response code from any parameters (or commentary) by a
single space.

I do agree with you - "nnn-" is not a good idea for multiline
responses. I do not see the need, at this point, to add multiline
responses to NNTP. If in the future multiline responses are required
then they can be added using the "LIST EXTENSIONS" mechanism.

As for debug responses - I still hold my, original, view that this is
a non-issue. No deployed servers output the codes, and if they did few 
clients would understand them. The x9x codes should only be used for
LOCAL TESTING. If debugging information is desirable over the network
then this can be added using the "LIST EXTENSIONS" mechanism (as I,
and you, have noted in previous emails).