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

[Ken Murchison]

Russ Allbery wrote:
> "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.)

So I should remove 432 and go back to what we had?

-- 
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