Opened 11 years ago

Closed 11 years ago

Last modified 11 years ago

#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 11 years ago by Julien ÉLIE

Resolution: wontfix
Status: newclosed

Note that XGTITLE is properly implemented according to (alsmost obsolete) RFC 2980.

Response codes are:

481 Groups and descriptions unavailable
282 List of groups and descriptions follows

comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by Julien ÉLIE

Keywords: compliance added

XBATCH has never been officially documented in an Internet-Draft and should probably be. See ticket #106.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.