[NNTP] draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming-02

[Russ Allbery]

"Andrew - Supernews" <andrew at supernews.net> writes:

> Maybe someone can come up with a specific circumstance where returning a
> deferral would make sense, but so far I've been unable to think of one
> (and none of my own implementations have ever done it). If it stays in
> the draft, then (a) it specifically needs to be the 431 code rather than
> a new one, and (b) it should be made clear that it's only appropriate if
> the problem is a _transient_ problem affecting _only that specific
> article_, and that more general failures should be handled by a
> connection close.

I think the argument in favor of it was mostly consistency, so I would
lean towards mentioning use of the 400 code and an immediate connection
close in response to TAKETHIS when the article can't be processed due to
some error condition.  (Yes, in theory, anyone should be able to realize
they can do that given that 400 is documented in the base draft, but I bet
people won't think of it unless we mention it explicitly.)

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