RE: Response Code 2501

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> I could not find the section in RFC1132, maybe you referred 
> to a different
> RFC number. In any case, I did check the FTP RFC959, where 
> result code 421
> is defined in FTP for a similar purpose as 2501 for EPP.

Oops, sorry, it's RFC 1123.

> It is good that you brought up FTP as an example to shed 
> lights on how 421
> is being used. My colleague Ning Zhang collected an FTP trace 
> yesterday from
> an WFTP implementation on Linux. The trace clearly shows that 
> the FTP server
> sends 421 to the client before closing down the control 
> connection after
> timeout. 

Looking at RFC 959, I don't agree at all that the situation is similar.
Response code 421 is clearly identified as a _response_ sent for the various
ftp commands, not an unsolicited response to note connection closing as a
result of a timeout:

"421 Service not available, closing control connection.
This may be a reply to any command if the service knows it
must shut down."

> So, should result code 2501 be handled similarly in EPP in the case of
> server closing down the session?

Nope.  No unsolicited responses.

-Scott-