RE: Comments from the meeting on Monday and the draft

["Philip J. Nesser II" <phil@Nesser.COM>]

Sounds reasonable.  But if we want to leave it in (and just to be clear I think its a reasonable idea), then we at least need to define the basics.  ie 

Response codes are 4 digit decimal values.  The first digits specify a catagory or classification of response type.

The following catagories are defined:

1XXX:  Sucessful Completion
2XXX:  Syntax Errors
3XXX:  Security Problems
4XXX:  etc...
5XXX:  etc...
6XXX:  etc...
7XXX:  etc...
8XXX:  Vendor Specific Responses
9XXX:  Reserved

(Clearly more thought needs to go into this than I have just tossed off.)

--->  Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael MacFaden [mailto:mrm@riverstonenet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 1:23 PM
To: Philip J. Nesser II
Cc: ops-nm@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments from the meeting on Monday and the draft


On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:05:20PM -0700, Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
>On the use of numerical codes (ala SMTP) its hard to see how the current text can lead to anything but confusion.  Recommending it to vendors will only result in *maybe* someone implementing it and then there would be no standard response codes.  Either take it on as a work item and define at least the general classifications or drop it.  Don't leave it in as an off the cuff comment.  It doesn't have to be in this document, it could be in another.

I would think the format should be standardized but the response codes don't have to
be much like your RJ45 pin example. The fact that a program can parse them using
a standard format then look them up in a vendor's product manual works for me.

Mike MacFaden