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

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> I mean the 1600 and 2600 generic result codes for protocol 
> extensions, as 
> suggested by Scott.
> Any comments ?
> I'd appreciate some some directions if I'm getting off the 
> right track ?

I sent the updated documents off to the I-D administrator earlier today, and
didn't do anything to add new error codes as described above.  There doesn't
seem to be agreement that they're needed; I certainly don't think they are
after giving this some more thought and hearing other people's comments.

When a client does a <login> it selects the extensions it wishes to use
during the session.  If the server then sends back one of those extensions
in a response, the client is obligated to understand it.  The very fact that
the extension is present is enough to tell the client "look in here", so
adding response codes to say "look in the extension" just doesn't seem to
add anything.

-Scott-