[INN] #105: Reply codes other than x9x used for private extensions XBATCH and XGTITLE

INN rra at stanford.edu
Thu Dec 25 20:09:17 UTC 2008


#105: Reply codes other than x9x used for private extensions XBATCH and XGTITLE
--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  iulius  |       Owner:  eagle
     Type:  defect  |      Status:  new  
 Priority:  low     |   Milestone:       
Component:  innd    |     Version:       
 Severity:  normal  |    Keywords:       
--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 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.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://inn.eyrie.org/trac/ticket/105>
INN <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/inn/>
InterNetNews


More information about the inn-bugs mailing list