[NNTP] draft-ietf-nntpext-tls-nntp-02.txt
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Fri Oct 1 05:01:03 PDT 2004
Jeffrey M. Vinocur said:
> IIRC, this was because any case where the server can unilaterally close
> the connection makes me worried about a naive client inadvertently
> DOS'ing the server.
Indeed.
> I mean, if the client author isn't prepared for a unilateral
> termination to be purposeful (rather than a network glitch dropping the
> connection), the client software might immediately reconnect and repeat
> the same sequence of commands, causing the server to unilaterally
> terminate again, and so on, indefinitely.
I see this as a concern.
And this is why we have the 400 response - to indicate *purposeful*
termination rather than accidental.
> Regardless, I do feel like we're misleading to client authors if the
> spec says only "the server will reject all further commands" when in
> practice servers are quite likely to close the connection, even if
> somewhere in a different document we warn them that the server can
> close the connection at any time.
So we say "the server will reject all further commands, which MAY
include issuing a 400 generic response".
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive at demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: <clive at davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc | |
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list