Noel, > Is there any additional language that refers to a prefered solution, or to > any additional semantics for re-authentication? Without the RFC > specifying > a preference, or common practice if the RFC is neutral, I don't > particularly > care which optional behavior is manifested in the code, so long as it > works. > Do anyone else? Harmeet seems to have a preference.
Nothing documented in the RFC. There might be something somewhere else. It's a basically three line change to change the current code to allow re-authentication (rather than returning a 482, the user, pass, and isAlreadyAuthenticated values get wiped). I don't really care - so long as the other behavior (handling double USER submission, out of order, double PASSWORD) is there. > > This is a MAY, not a MUST, so it is indeed optional. > > I generally find that MAY is used to specify minimally required behavior, > when alternatives are more complex and not universally necessary. Yep. --Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
