[NNTP] Article Numbers Becoming Invalid (RFC 3977)
Julien ÉLIE
julien at trigofacile.com
Wed Jan 6 10:35:20 PST 2010
Hi Russ,
>> Note that a previously valid article number MAY become invalid if the
>> article has been removed. A previously invalid article number MAY
>> become valid if the article has been reinstated, but this article
>> number MUST be no less than the reported low water mark for that
>> group.
>>
>> The validity of the pointer MAY change.
>
> I wonder if we should file an erratum against that paragraph suggesting a
> rewording to use another word than invalid. Although that paragraph does
> talk about the validity of the article number, not the validity of the
> current article pointer, so there is a subtle distinction. But I think
> it's too subtle to be clear on a first reading.
>
> I suspect s/invalid/unavailable/ and s/valid/available/ would still be
> fairly clear and avoid the ambiguity.
Yes, I think it would be useful to file an erratum.
Even though it is rejected, it will be reviewed when a successor, if any,
to RFC 3977 comes.
>> I think the whole point is that after entering a non-empty group, 420 is
>> not a valid answer to ARTICLE without argument. It should have been 423
>> as it was the case in RFC 977.
>
> Well, somewhat more precisely, 420 is only a valid answer to ARTICLE
> without an argument if the group was empty at the time of the GROUP
> command. If the group was not empty but the current article is
> unavailable, 423 should be used instead.
It is indeed the explained behaviour:
If the argument is a message-id and no such article exists, a 430
response MUST be returned. If the argument is a number or is omitted
and the currently selected newsgroup is invalid, a 412 response MUST
be returned. If the argument is a number and that article does not
exist in the currently selected newsgroup, a 423 response MUST be
returned. If the argument is omitted and the current article number
is invalid, a 420 response MUST be returned.
We do not know the answer to give when the argument is omitted and the
article does not exist in the currently selected newsgroup!
>> And it is also what is implemented in the NNTP reference implementation,
>> INN, and probably other news servers.
>
> I'm almost tempted to propose an erratum for this, but changing a return
> code is probably more than we really should do in an erratum.
Well, I think that would not change the code at all. The code is
currently *unspecified* in RFC 3977!
So the erratum would basically just mention the code to use. And this
code is 423.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Medicus dedit qui temporis morbo curam,
Is plus remedii quam cutis sector dedit. »
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list