Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: CAP Error codes definition and handling

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:11:24 -0700 (PDT)

> From: Frank Dawson/CAM/Lotus <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 12:24:29 GMT
> 
> Having the spec specify some standard text is useful. I don't mind if a
> vendor wants to augment this, but we need to have some standardized text in
> the spec for each numeric status code.

We need a description for each numeric status code in the spec.

-Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]		http://playground.sun.com/~dougr
Pager:				[email-masked]
801 W. El Camino #131		Work:   (650)786-7599
Mountain View, CA 94040		Ham Radio: N6AAW, Aviation: PP-ASEL

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 14:05:06 +0200

>We need a description for each numeric status code in the spec.

Description is one thing, standardized text something else. A 
standardized text would will not fly.

The numeric code is standardized, not the text. The text should 
inform the person debugging the protocol what happened -- and 
therefore it must be possible for the software sending the message to 
use whatever descriptive text it wants.

    Patrik
------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Director, Applications Area               Email: [email-masked]
IETF                                             URL: http://paf.se
                                           PGP Key ID: 0xBD236602

    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice,
    but in practice, there is.