ietf-nntp Generic responses

[Russ Allbery]

Lee Kindness <lkindness at csl.co.uk> writes:

> Clive D.W. Feather writes:
>> 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:
>> [ snip ]
>> For each command in the specification, some of these are legitimate
>> responses and some are not. For example:
>> [ snip ]
>> {Question 1} Does anyone disagree ?

> I agree this is a good generalisation that would imporve readability
> of the specification.

I also agree; I think that the generic responses should be included.

>> If we agree, then the following possibilities come to mind:
>> [ snip ]
>> (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
>> {Question 2} Which of these three arrangements is best ?

> Option 3.

I also agree with this.  Does anyone else disagree?  (I thought this
change had consensus as well.)

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>