[ANCP] Non-existent result code in Section 6 of draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-06.txt
Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 01:30 UTC
Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 50AA221F86FF for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.414
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.185,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u7pqDnmkkZAc for
<ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com
[209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121F421F86FE for
<ancp@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhj6 with SMTP id hj6so2735387wib.13 for <ancp@ietf.org>;
Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-antivirus :x-antivirus-status;
bh=IskzD0fZNz67MFDpMPEFgN5C0KKwUg1NcDP9ZmjCrIA=;
b=GKpP8E6S+L5Z+M0mrS/nOO+2tWZHCXjaEmY+6WDraWmEWJgzgMOTYiNqXr67nYA47g
COnNSTqyz9Nt6dNy3fwVBZ6lRs4VEYP/s0AIa3L23jx6c+xCghKotxt7ipcJP1dt4Z3D
v7uoRu/oJLUXCkCdR5LZl27tPVs8hDGD7hZcrNcysyPp6MgtW7VBWE3MeaoTkHh0S9Rr
zkuuDeC50cLVQR2GZ0AXR2tMfuYIAgt2pdqvkrAMAY6Kkv6dM9ZdnG7zaQ7gjrEvcwC4
9FxFlj9DXcNQdwkF6WN/UnncdyI73Yfq5lPgMEFd1oiajljZ4vuqGDYEdZr7rCRf7TRn rA7Q==
Received: by 10.180.78.9 with SMTP id x9mr2790835wiw.18.1335231013262;
Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-207-112-91-137.tor.primus.ca.
[207.112.91.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
n8sm41127976wix.10.2012.04.23.18.30.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F960221.3030106@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:30:09 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "ancp@ietf.org" <ancp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120423-1, 23/04/2012), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Subject: [ANCP] Non-existent result code in Section 6 of
draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-06.txt
X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list
<ancp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ancp>,
<mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ancp>
List-Post: <mailto:ancp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp>,
<mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:30:15 -0000
Section 6 of draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-06.txt refers to the
following result code:
84 "TLV or value not supported by negotiated
capability set"
This was not defined in the base document (RFC 6320). Something of the
sort, but perhaps more general, should have been defined there,
something like:
0x54 "Not supported by negotiated set of capabilities"
Should we write a separate draft updating RFC 6320 and adding this new
value (setting a precedent for other general error codes), or just go
ahead and define it in draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions? The amount of
explanation goes beyond one paragraph, because handling of unsupported
messages has to be described too.
Comments?
Tom Taylor