Subject: [NNTP] Extensions drafts

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:07:10 -0400

I was sent a message offline about the fact that the extension drafts 
discuss some of the generic responses (namely 480, 483, 504), but don't 
list them in the formal syntax/response sections.  I realize that these 
responses are valid for *any* command, but I can see the point that 
since we're outside of the base document that they it may be worth 
listing them as valid responses and mentioning that they are defined in 
the base doc.  Thoughts?

-- 
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

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 14:04:21 -0700

> listing them as valid responses and mentioning that they are defined in

I think we talked a bit about this at some point in the past.  Personally,
I'd rather not duplicate information already in the base document, since
if the base document adds more generic return codes at some point in the
future for some reason, it's just more places to update.

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

---

From: "Jeffrey M. Vinocur" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 19:36:34 -0400

On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:04 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> list them in the formal syntax/response sections.

> future for some reason, it's just more places to update

Yeah, the list seemed to feel that we should not include the generic 
responses in the response list for each command.

However, if anyone wants to see language that the generic codes still 
apply, I guess we could put that somewhere (maybe in the Summary of 
Response Codes section, although that doesn't seem like the ideal 
place).

-- 
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
[email-masked]

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 06:39:51 +0100

> listing them as valid responses and mentioning that they are defined in 

We're clear that these documents extend NNTP and defer to the base document
in lots of ways. Are you going to copy in the rules for comments at the end
of response lines, or how to do dot-stuffing, or what UTF-8 is, or ...? Of
course not. I don't see this as different.

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