ietf-nntp Another message from urs@akk.org about tin

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Stan O. Barber said:
>>>>>> In addition to this, I think it is important that the new spec
>>>>>> mandates this - intelligent/obvious - behaviour:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   All unrecognised 200 series codes should be assumed as
>>>>>>   success.

>>>> Some time ago I proposed the wording:
>>>>
>>>>   If a client receives an unexpected response, it SHOULD use the first
>>>>   digit to determine what action to take. In most cases, a reasonable
>>>>   action would be that taken for a valid response with the same first
>>>>   digit.

>> A similar opinion. I agree the issue should be clarified; I think that
>> Lee's wording is too detailed and inflexible.

> Do you think that having text in a standard that is "flexible" promotes
> interoperability among different implementation?

Normally, no I wouldn't.

However, this text is a recommendation for implementers when dealing with a
broken implementation at the other end of the link. So interoperability is
already out of the window. In these circumstances the client should be
trying to salvage what it can, and I feel flexibility is useful.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:  +44 20 8371 1037
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | DFax: +44 20 8371 4037
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646