> Would prefer to have deferred this discussion...
> Here it is:
You were the one who raise the discussion. I didn't ask to see code
(finished or unfinished). I asked to see a state description of the
behavior. I can read the previous code to see what IT manifests the
behavior to be, I can read your new code to see what IT manifests the
behavior to be, but NEITHER is an RFC driven description of authentication
states and transitions.
This isn't a style issue, a refactoring issue, or some other subjective.
There is an RFC that dictates the correct behavior. You said that the
current code does not model the correct behavior. I'm not debating the
point with you. I'm asking you for an RFC driven description of the proper
behavior. If necessary, I'll read the RFC, myself.
As far as I'm concerned, no one --- not me, not you, not Peter, no one ---
should be submitting changes to the wire-level-protocol syntax and semantics
without documenting the relevant RFC issues. If there is disagreement on
how to interpret the RFC, we can check with other sources. But this is not
a subjective matter. There may be options that render multiple choices
correct, but that also needs to be demonstrated from the RFC.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
