Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-pop-wrong-state-00.txt

--On August 6, 2011 7:38:53 +0300 Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email protected]> 
wrote:
> Well, in the case when we define a response code, a clear reason for
> issuing it should be stated.  For the STATE response code, there is no
> one.  With respect to POP3S.  After some discussions with Alexey we
> reached the agreement to follow RFC 1939, and state the following: (1)
> TLS negotiation --> /AUTHORIZATION/ (2) [due to client/server's settings]
> use SASL EXTERNAL --> (3) [if 2 fails, or there was no convention between
> client and server] authenticate itself --> /TRANSACTION/ (4) actual
> transaction.  So the response code for this purpose isn't useful any more.

Ok. So then why is the WRONG-STATE code useful enough to be worth the 
trouble to publish a document?

The litmus test that's been mostly followed for IMAP is that a response 
code is justified if the client can usefully behave differently as a result 
of the response code. Can you articulate how the client would usefully 
behave differently as a result of this code? If so, I suggest adding that 
explanation to the document.

		- Chris