[ietf-nntp] draft-ietf-nntpext-tls-nntp-01.txt

[Russ Allbery]

Jeffrey M Vinocur <jeff at litech.org> writes:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:

>>> Section 3.1: The sentence beginning "Clients MUST ..." should be removed,
>>> since the base specification states which responses must be expected.

>> Agreed.

> I kept that on purpose, because I thought the sentence forbidding 483 
> was a bit of a non sequitor otherwise.  For reference:

>      Clients MUST support other response codes by processing them based
>      on the first digit.  However, the server MUST NOT return 483 in
>      response to STARTTLS.  (See section 3.2.1 of [NNTP].)

> Russ, if you still agree on removing it, just say so.

Hm, yes, that's a fair point, although it doesn't bother me too much.  I
would add more detail in that paragraph about why the server MUST NOT
return 483, and maybe that would make the sentence sound more balanced
without the reference to generic client behavior.
 
> Looks good?

>      Example of a failed attempt to negotiate TLS, with recovery of the
>      underlying NNTP session:

Looks good to me.

>      o  The LISTGROUP command can be used before or after the MODE
>         READER command, with the same semantics.

STARTTLS here.  Other than that, looks good to me.

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