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

From: rra at stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Thu Nov 4 21:06:44 2004

Ken Murchison <[email-masked]> writes:

> FWIW, I agree with Clive on this point (regarding 436, I think the jury
> is still out on 432).  I'm all for trying to document existing practice,
> as long as existing practice isn't horribly broken.  Poor
> implementations should wither and die, not continue to exist because we
> retroactively make them compliant.

I agree with Andrew that returning deferrals to an article body is
horribly broken (dealing with it makes a mess in innfeed).  I was willing
to see it in there because servers do actually do it, but I find his
argument rather persuasive and would rather just explicitly mention the
400 response.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: rra at stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Thu Nov 4 21:08:28 2004

Clive D W Feather <[email-masked]> writes:
> Andrew - Supernews said:

>> If for some strange reason the client wants to use reader commands, it
>> can reconnect.

> And you don't think that's antisocial?

The failure cases that we're discussing are such things as a full disk or
a bad drive, and hence are so rare as to make the question of
inconvenience to a client that wants to use the limping server for some
other purpose pretty much irrelevant.  This case is so rare that it's not
worth exerting any effort to make it efficient.