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

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Ken Murchison said:
> I'm not entirely sure that referring to pipelining is sufficient since 
> it doesn't address the completion of TLS.  I think replacing the entire 
> second sentence with the following from RFC 2595 makes the most sense:
> 
> "Once a client issues a STARTTLS command, it MUST NOT issue further 
> commands until a server response is seen and the TLS negotiation is 
> complete."

"... is seen and any TLS negotiation ..." (addresses the case of a failure
response). That would seem the best answer.

> I think I address this in another post.  This situation should never 
> happen.  If the server should offer any options which it is not willing 
> to accept from the client.  If negotiation succeeds, the server should 
> be happy with the outcome.

In that case the text should be rewritten to delete the text that started
this discussion (I'm not clear if that's what you're proposing).

-- 
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