ietf-nntp Draft 17 pre-2

[Russ Allbery]

Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery said:
>> Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:

>>> [Which reminds me, could we do something like require all future
>>> extensions to use 6xx for multiline responses? Or is that too far?]
>> I'm not sure that really buys anything, given the number of multiline
>> responses that we already have that don't use 6xx.

> It would at least make it a closed problem. At present, the client code
> that handles responses has to have a table of codes that are multiline,
> and even then has one case where that doesn't tell it whether the
> response will be multi-line response or not. This doesn't make for
> modular code.

> I suppose I'm just looking to stop the problem getting any worse in the
> future.

I guess, the more that I think about this, I don't really have a strong
opinion one way or the other.  I can see your point, but it also feels
like making something up out of the blue that will just confuse people
down the road when they wonder why there's this 6xx code that the base
NNTP commands don't use.

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