ietf-nntp Re: Last major open issue (48x return codes)
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Thu Oct 2 08:18:34 PDT 2003
Charles Lindsey said:
>> (4) Provide 401 as a generic "you need to jump through a hoop" response for
>> any hoops other than auth/auth/priv.
> Um! I still don't see what's wrong with using up a separate number for
> each (class of) hoop. 480 and 483 (or 481) signify hoops. Why should the
> next hoop (e.g. that HOST example) have to share a code with all the other
> hoops that may arise someday.
Because we have no idea what hoops are going to arise, and when. So either
we need a big enough set of numbers (either all 48x, or all 4[78]x, or all
7xx, or something) *and* an allocation mechanism, or we have a single code
for all not-yet-known hoops.
>> (5) Recommend that the first word after 401 is the label of the extension
>> that defines the hoop.
> Would do the job, but smells like a kludge. I would rather not, but if
> there is nothing better ...
Well, it leverages off the existing registry of names.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive at demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: <clive at davros.org> | *** NOTE CHANGE ***
Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax: +44 870 051 9937
Thus plc | | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list