ietf-nntp Re: Last major open issue (48x return codes)

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Charles Lindsey said:
> Now if assorted 4xy responses currently do things for various 'x' (mostly
> with the meaning "try again later"), then it is perfectly reasonably for
> the base document to define a subclass 48y for the "you need to jump
> through a hoop" cases. Then we can define 480 for "authentication needed"
> and "483" (or maybe 481) for "privacy needed" (or is it the other way
> around), and leave the rest for future enhancements.

Given our existing definitions, 40x or 47x would be better for non-security
type enhancements.

> I don't really like
> the idea of using a command name as part of the following text. That text
> is for humans, and it really indicates that you need to configure your
> reader differently.

I disagree. Some responses have parameters already. It so happens that
they're all 2xx ones so far, but there's no specific reason for that to be
a restriction.

-- 
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