As far as I can tell, RFC 977 doesn't actually specify whether status
responses are guaranteed to end with CR LF. Text responses and commands
are quite clearly defined as ending with CR LF, however. Am I missing
something here?

In article <12hrb358nbz2x.dlg@tjb.invalid.invalid>,
tjb <tjb@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> As far as I can tell, RFC 977 doesn't actually specify whether status
> responses are guaranteed to end with CR LF. Text responses and commands
> are quite clearly defined as ending with CR LF, however. Am I missing
> something here?

Section 2.4.2 Status Responses contains:

Parameters are separated from the numeric response code and from each
other by a single space. All numeric parameters are decimal, and may
have leading zeros. All string parameters begin after the separating
space, and end before the following separating space or the CR-LF
pair at the end of the line.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, RFC 977 doesn't actually specify whether status
>> responses are guaranteed to end with CR LF. Text responses and commands
>> are quite clearly defined as ending with CR LF, however. Am I missing
>> something here?
>
> Section 2.4.2 Status Responses contains:
>
> Parameters are separated from the numeric response code and from each
> other by a single space. All numeric parameters are decimal, and may
> have leading zeros. All string parameters begin after the separating
> space, and end before the following separating space or the CR-LF
> pair at the end of the line.

Ah. So the key point is the end part, I take it -- "the CR-LF pair at the
end of the line". Thanks.

(I wish this RFC were more explicit. It really wouldn't hurt for it to
state "All status responses end with a CR-LF pair."

In article <1faf2ocbxr6p7.dlg@tjb.invalid.invalid>,
tjb <tjb@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> As far as I can tell, RFC 977 doesn't actually specify whether status
> >> responses are guaranteed to end with CR LF. Text responses and commands
> >> are quite clearly defined as ending with CR LF, however. Am I missing
> >> something here?
> >
> > Section 2.4.2 Status Responses contains:
> >
> > Parameters are separated from the numeric response code and from each
> > other by a single space. All numeric parameters are decimal, and may
> > have leading zeros. All string parameters begin after the separating
> > space, and end before the following separating space or the CR-LF
> > pair at the end of the line.
>
> Ah. So the key point is the end part, I take it -- "the CR-LF pair at the
> end of the line". Thanks.
>
> (I wish this RFC were more explicit. It really wouldn't hurt for it to
> state "All status responses end with a CR-LF pair."

This RFC is indeed quite sloppy.

It's a pretty old RFC, predating the formal RFC review process we
currently have.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> (I wish this RFC were more explicit. It really wouldn't hurt for it to
>> state "All status responses end with a CR-LF pair."
>
> This RFC is indeed quite sloppy.
>
> It's a pretty old RFC, predating the formal RFC review process we
> currently have.

I see. Thanks for the info!