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

[Ken Murchison]

Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.

I'm not sure that I completely understand the argument, so some 
suggested text might be helpful.

-- 
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