Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-simple-chat-13

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 7, 2012, at 8:12 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:

>> In Section 7.1:
>> 
>>     The reservation of a nickname can fail, e.g. if the NICKNAME request
>>     contains a malformed or non-existent Use-Nickname header field, or
>>     if the same nickname has already been reserved by another
>>     participant (i.e., by another URI) in the chat room.  The
>>     validation can also fail where the sender of the message is not
>>     entitled to reserve the nickname.  In any of these cases the MSRP
>>     switch MUST answer the NICKNAME request with a 423 response.  The
>>     semantics of the 423 response are: "Nickname usage failed; the
>>     nickname is not allocated to this user".
>> 
>> It would be better to use different response codes for different error
>> conditions.
> 
> I also sympathize your proposal. We had this for avoiding creating very detailed error conditions. But I wouldn't mind to differentiate both error cases. Perhaps we should take this to the WG for comments.

I agree that if we think we need to allocate additional error codes, we should run that by the work group. Miguel, can you send a note to the SIMPLE list on that?

Thanks!

Ben.