[NNTP] [2504] Response code for "need MODE READER first"

Russ Allbery rra at stanford.edu
Thu Dec 2 10:24:27 PST 2004


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

> We still need the 401 code. The reason for it, in case it's slipped your
> mind, is that some future extension may need a way to say to a core
> command "you can't do this until you've invoked this extension".

Yeah, I'm still not really convinced by this, but everyone else seems
happy with it, so I'll stop arguing about it.  :)  It makes sense in the
future-proofing department, I suppose.

The disadvantage of sticking with 502 for the MODE READER case is that
then 401 isn't actually used by anything that currently exists, which
always makes me a bit nervous.  But 502 is existing practice.

Leave 401 in, and I don't care a lot about 502 vs. 401 for MODE READER but
I'd tend to lean towards 502 (which also lets us simplify the 401
description slightly to always use an extension label).

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



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list