Re: Result codes to handle protocol extension-related errors.

[Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:48:22AM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> 
> I'd much rather see extensions (including error extensions) left within the
> boundaries of an <extension> element instead of trying to anticipate
> extension errors in the core document, we might be able to define two new
> response codes (like maybe 1600 and 2600) that means either "command
> succeeded" or "command failed", and "look at the <extension> for details.
> I'm not sure if there's much value in this, though, since extensions can
> supplement existing response codes anyway.

True, but it might be helpful to registrars (and registries) to
have a code dedicated just to indicating that the whole of the error
is in the <extension> part.  This would cut down on "well, my code
works in registry xyz; the server must be broken" reports.  (I'm not
wedded to theidea, but I can see its utility.)

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                               87 Mowat Avenue 
Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M6K 3E3
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110