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