Re: SIMPLE chat: Status codes
Ben Campbell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.simple |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
(as chair) Does anyone else have thoughts on this question? The draft just finished IETF last call. We'd like to get an "approval candidate" back to the IESG as soon as possible. Thanks! Ben. On Feb 9, 2012, at 4:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > (as individual) > > I have mixed emotions on the need for more granular nickname errors. I see the point, but I'm also hesitant to start a response code explosion. > > In this case, I guess it depends on what we expect a client implementation to do different with the different conditions. If the answer is "display the error to the end-user along with the comment text" for all cases, I don't find that very convincing. > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 4:00 AM, Saul Ibarra Corretge wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>> >>> I think these special nicknames are permanently reserved, so, they are in use (by the system). >>> >>> I don't care much of the textual representation of the status code, since this is for us human to understand. The important think is that the semantics are clear. >>> >> >> Ok, bad example :-) I was thinking about some nicknames that could perhaps be disabled by the administrator, like bad words or some special names. This case is semantically different than a malformed nickname (it's not malformed) and it's also not "not in use" (nobody can use it, actually) so IMHO a new code could be appropriate. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> Saúl Ibarra Corretgé >> AG Projects >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Simple mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple > > _______________________________________________ > Simple mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple