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

09.08.2011 0:59, Chris Newman wrote:
> --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.

There already is.  When the client receives such response, it should 
change its state according to the server's one.  If client and a server 
are unsynchronized, WRONG-STATE response code will facilitate their 
synchronizing.

Mykyta

>
>         - Chris
>
>