Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
One has to be careful here - adding "clarifications" just adds things for
the crack programmers to totally misinterpret.
Seriously - write up your proposed text, and then *carefully* read it while
thinking "How can somebody who thinks syntax errors are 4xx screw this one
up, when they intentionally *try* to do so?"
I think the editor can do a "NOOP" document search and see there it is
discussed, and pull out the semantics comparing NOOP to RESET and also
in the reply code section, and put some of that into the NOOP section
itself. Its not hard.
I think the statement I added in the OP, was exactly that:
This command does not affect any parameters or previously entered
commands. It specifies no action other than that the receiver send
an OK reply. Server SHOULD ignore the NOOP command by issueing a
250 response.
and it doesn't go into details, or maybe explaining why or when other
codes my be appropiate. If more insights are needed, fine. Obviously
the "top level" reason, for the human, help explain that it was a BUG,
but I think it would be useful telling people that what is expected will
definitely help fix this and other potential bugs and also help codify
expected state machine practices.
I hope that makes sense. It does to me.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com