[NNTP] [2506] 6xx response codes
Andrew - Supernews
andrew at supernews.net
Mon Nov 29 08:33:43 PST 2004
>>>>> "Clive" == Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:
Clive> Issue: appendix A says that 6xx response codes should be used
Clive> for new multi-line responses. Do we do this or drop the
Clive> appendix?
Drop it.
>> 2506: I don't see the point of a new 6xx response. How would a
>> client ever find itself in such a situation? All existing
>> commands have well defined responses, so the client MUST know when
>> to expect a multi-line response. If the client gets an unexpected
>> multi-line response, then it probably issued a command that it
>> doesn't support, and gets what it deserves.
Clive> You're assuming that the results parsing is tied in tightly
Clive> with the bit of code that issues the specific command.
It is not possible, with the protocol as it stands, to parse the
results of a command without knowing which command was issued. This is
an unfortunate wart, but it's not fixable without breaking backward
compatibility for LISTGROUP, which _is_ used reasonably widely by
clients.
In practice, the pseudo-code for clients is more usually along the
lines of:
sprintf(command, "ARTICLE %s", message-id);
response_code = issue_command_multiline(command);
if response_code is 2xx then process the multiline response...
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list