Subject: Re: [Geopriv] HELD Error Codes

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:35:36 -0500

Hi Hannes,

I apologize as I don't think I ever responded to this comment. 

I don't think that error response is appropriate since it means that the
original request had an error in the XML versus the response effectively
having an error.  I would think this would only happen if the LIS has
been updated to support new HELD functionality - i.e., wouldn't this
lead to someone debugging the client device looking for an error in
their XML (unless of course they have an interface that allows them to
look at the raw message)?   

I would almost think unsupportedMessage would be a better match for that
situation.  To me this is more likely to get someone considering that
there's a mis-match/incompatibility in protocol versions, although the
issue is likely reversed. 

Thanks,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:55 PM
To: GEOPRIV
Subject: [Geopriv] HELD Error Codes

I was wondering whether a sentence someone in Section 5.4 would be
appropriate that says something like:

"
If a HELD client receives a message with an error code it does not
understand then it MUST treat it as an error with the semantic of the
'xmlError' response code. .
"

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv