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

[Charles Lindsey]

In <20030929122438.GT88163 at finch-staff-1.thus.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive at demon.net> writes:


>(1) We've already reserved x8x for authentication and authorization
>extensions; expand that to include "privacy".

OK

>(2) Allow any existing command to return 48x to mean that such an extension
>is blocking the action. Possibly limit this to 48[0-3].

OK

>(3) Go further, and recommend 480 for authentication, 483 for privacy, and
>482 for authorization. [Query 1: what's the difference between
>authentication and authorization? Query 2: will anyone scream if we change
>483 to 481?]

I don't think 483 exists in the wild yet. It was merely a suggestion in a
draft IIRC, in which case it is changeable.

>(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.

>(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 ...

>(6) State that the MODE READER case SHOULD use 401, but historically uses
>502.

So an implementation can use either? OK, it is fixing a bad choice.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5