ietf-nntp Generic responses
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Wed Dec 12 06:54:21 PST 2001
Stan O. Barber said:
> No, it did not. That's why it was not in there. I, for one, find it
> confusing.
Let me start again.
We have 7 generic response codes:
400 terminating immediately
401 terminating soon
403 feature not available (temporary)
500 unknown command
501 syntax error
502 not authorized
503 feature not available (permanent)
For each command in the specification, some of these are legitimate
responses and some are not. For example:
GROUP 400, 401, and 501 are valid
HDR any are valid (I think)
LIST 400, 401, and 501 are valid
LIST EXTENSIONS 400, 401, 501, and 503 are valid
I think it would be useful for the description of each command to include
an indication of which generic responses could appear.
{Question 1} Does anyone disagree ?
If we agree, then the following possibilities come to mind:
(1) Include them mixed in with the other responses.
9.1.1.1.1 Responses
211 n l h ggg Group successfully selected (...)
400 Terminating immediately
401 Terminating soon
411 No such newsgroup
501 Syntax error in parameters
(2) Include them, but separated out:
9.1.1.1.1 Responses
211 n l h ggg Group successfully selected (...)
411 No such newsgroup
plus the following generic responses:
400 Terminating immediately
401 Terminating soon
501 Syntax error in parameters
(3) List the valid generic responses as a summary:
9.1.1.1.1 Responses
211 n l h ggg Group successfully selected (...)
411 No such newsgroup
plus generic responses 400, 401, 501
or, to use the format of my earlier proposal:
9.1.1.1.1 Responses
211 n l h ggg Group successfully selected (...)
411 No such newsgroup
Generic: 400 401 501
{Question 2} Which of these three arrangements is best ?
--
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 4037
Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc | |
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list