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

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Andrew - Supernews said:
> The distinguishing factor is whether the server has any reason to
> expect that an immediate following TAKETHIS for a different article,
> or a later following TAKETHIS for the same article, has any chance of
> success. If the server is getting errors (such as disk full) that
> aren't article-specific, then it should really fail in a way that also
> isn't article-specific (and closing the connection, possibly rejecting
> further connections until the problem is resolved, seems the better
> option).

The problem is that the errors are only posting-specific; they don't stop
clients from doing anything else. Therefore closing the connection is a
draconian solution.

The answer, perhaps, is to define the 431/432/436/441 responses as "don't
try to post anything else for a while", not just "don't try this specific
article again for a while". That is, general rather than specific deferral.

> Such an unsolicited close of the connection should probably be done
> with a 400 response rather than silently (see the base draft).

Agreed. If it happens at all, that is.

> If it
> stays in the draft, then (a) it specifically needs to be the 431 code
> rather than a new one,

Back in March Russ explained why CHECK and TAKETHIS need different status
codes. I don't have the explanation to hand, but I see from my sent-mail
archive that they convinced me at the time.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |