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

[Russ Allbery]

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

>> 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?

I think so (although if someone else has a different opinion, they should
weigh in here).  I'd add an explicit mention of a 400 response, saying
that it should be treated the same as no response, and I think we still
have to describe a deferral since that's the proper action to take if no
response or a 400 response is received.

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