Re: PING/PONG

[Christophe Kalt <kalt@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why do you email about this again? I've already told you in
private that PING/PONG is following RFC and nothing will be
changed.

On Feb 07, Kaspar Landsberg wrote:
| The behavior of the server returning the arguments from a received PING in
| its PONG has been this way the last 10 years or so (as i´ve been told).
| And it´s still like this on most major irc.nets out there, except (of
| course) on IRCNet. The IRCNet ircd just returns "PONG :<nick of the
| originating client of the PING>" instead of "PONG :<args supplied from the
| originating client of the PING>".

WRONG,
it replies ":prefix PONG <server name> [:]<nickname>"

| Some say returning the arguments of the PING within the PONG would violate
| the RFC. This is not true. The RFC says:
| 
|   Any client which receives a PING message must respond to <server1>
|   (server which sent the PING message out) as quickly as possible with
|   an appropriate PONG message to indicate it is still there and alive.
| 
| "appropriate" is not defined! Which means you can define it any way you
| want.

WRONG again, it is defined by the syntax for the PONG
message.

|       Returning the arguments within the PONG message would be completely
| within the proctol.

WRONG once more.
read section 4.6.3 of the RFC.

| Or is there another way of asking the server whether it´s still alive and
| then get back a unique ID from it which the client sent to it?

Why do you need a unique ID? answer: you DON'T.
send "PING" to the server, you'll get a "PONG" back if it is
alive, or won't if it is not. (if it is not, the TCP
connection will be torn down by your OS anyway).

| If not, then please get the server back to the traditionnal behavior.

NO.