#105 closed defect (wontfix)
Reply codes other than x9x used for private extensions XBATCH and XGTITLE
| Reported by: | Julien ÉLIE | Owned by: | eagle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | low | Milestone: | |
| Component: | innd | Version: | |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | compliance |
| Cc: | compliance |
Description
RFC 3977, section 3.2:
Response codes not specified in this standard MAY be used for any installation-specific additional commands also not specified. These SHOULD be chosen to fit the pattern of x9x specified above.
INN uses quite a few response codes that do not fit this pattern for various extensions. XBATCH and XGTITLE should have used response codes in the x9x range.
Impact: Additional ambiguity over the meaning of reply codes, as those reply codes could later be standardized as the reply codes for other commands.
For XGTITLE and probably XBATCH, there is no way to fix this now. Changing the reply codes would break all existing implementations.
Change History (2)
comment:1 Changed 15 years ago by
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
comment:2 Changed 15 years ago by
| Keywords: | compliance added |
|---|
XBATCH has never been officially documented in an Internet-Draft and should probably be. See ticket #106.
Note that XGTITLE is properly implemented according to (alsmost obsolete) RFC 2980.
Response codes are: