RE: Provreg WG last call announcement

[Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com>]

On Mon, 2001-11-26 at 16:52, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> <snip/>
> 
> As I said, passing registry-defined error codes in the <value> element isn't
> the way the <value> element is defined in the specs.  Thinking about this a
> bit more, though, I can see where it would be helpful to provide more than
> just the offending data in error situations - perhaps it makes more sense to
> pass back the whole offending element, with data included.  In the case of
> missing elements, or elements that are missing data, the server can just
> pass back an empty element (including the object namespace, if needed) to
> identify the problem.  In the example Sheer provided, it could look like
> this:
> 
> <value><contact:id/></value>
> 
> to note that a <contact:id> element is missing.
> 
> If additional response codes are needed, the best place to define them would
> be in the protocol's extension mechanism.
> 
> -Scott-

Then Liberty misinterpreted this as well.  Yes, I see from draft 05 of
EPP:

 - Zero or more OPTIONAL <value> elements that echo client-provided
    values that caused server error conditions.