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

[Ken Murchison]

Russ Allbery wrote:

> Ken Murchison <ken at oceana.com> writes:
> 
>>Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> 
>>>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.
> 
> 
>>Actually (maybe I'm being thick and/or short-sighted), but does it
>>matter whether we're getting deferred via CHECK or TAKETHIS?  In either
>>case we're going to have to try again.
> 
> 
> Hm.  That's a good point.  Maybe it doesn't, actually.  Can anyone else
> think of a reason why it might matter?  (It would matter for success or
> rejection, since the sender of CHECK and TAKETHIS commands is not required
> to keep track of order or figure out if a particular response is in reply
> to CHECK or to TAKETHIS, but it seems like the behavior would be the same
> either way for a deferral.)

The more I think about this, isn't 439 essentially a deferral?  It says 
the transfer failed, but why?  Does mean that we should retry or does 
this mean that we rejected the article (e.g. don't send it again).

I think what we need is a deferral (temp fail) code and a rejection 
code.  We might be able to use 431 and the former and 439 as the latter. 
  Or if 439 already means deferral, then we can probably reuse 438 as a 
rejection code.

My guess is that  439 corresponds to 436 (second stage) and its a temp 
failure.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp