ietf-nntp 9.3.2 still slightly unclear on IHAVE return codes

[Stan O Barber]

I am fine with this. Others? Let's see if there are any other comments 
before IETF. We can finalize at IETF.

Russ Allbery wrote:

> Section 9.3.2 currently has:
> 
>     If transmission of the article is requested, the client MUST send the
>     entire article, including header and body, in the format defined above
>     (section 4) for multi-line responses (except that there is no initial
>     line containing a response code). Thus a single period (".") on a line
>     indicates the end of the text, and lines starting with a period in the
>     original text have that period doubled during transmission. The server
>     MUST then return a response code indicating success or failure of the
>     transferal of the article.
> 
> The last sentence is somewhat unclear about return codes, and since IHAVE
> has somewhat strange and overlapping return codes (435 is only allowed in
> response to the original command, 436 is allowed in response to either the
> command or the article, and 437 is only allowed in response to the
> article), I think it would be worthwhile to be completely explicit here.
> 
> I therefore propose replacing the final sentence of that paragraph with:
> 
>     The server MUST return either response code 235, indicating that the
>     article was successfully transferred, response code 436, indicating
>     that the transfer failed but should be tried again later, or response
>     code 437, indicating that the article was rejected.
> 
> It partially duplicates information already found in the summary of return
> codes, but in this case I think the return codes to IHAVE are confusing
> and the additional clarity is helpful.
> 
>