[NNTP] Re: [ietf-nntp] draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming-01.txt

[Russ Allbery]

Ken Murchison <ken at oceana.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:

>>>> TAKETHIS has no deferral return status.  We could add one as part of
>>>> this standardization process; it's not a bad idea.

>>>> If we want to add a deferral, we need to use 432 or some similar
>>>> code.  I don't think we need two types of deferrals; all streaming
>>>> deferrals should be delayed at least a little while.

>>> Is this something that we want to add to the document?

>> I don't see any obvious reason not to add it.

> So, is 432 the definitive code?

432 is, according to my records, previously unused.  (Which is somewhat
suspicious -- I wonder why it was skipped over originally.)

431 is used for a deferral after CHECK, but we shouldn't reuse that code
since a deferral after TAKETHIS is different and the two may be
intermingled.  436 is used as the deferral for IHAVE, both as an initial
response and after the article was sent.  We could potentially use it, but
I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not.

I don't see any obvious Google references to an existing meaning for 432.

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