RE: [dhcwg] Status codes for Information-Request

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Wed, 23 January 2002 23:47 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29594 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:47:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA23635 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:47:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA23444; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:37:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA23425 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:37:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29376 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:37:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-86.cisco.com [161.44.149.86]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id SAA24039 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:36:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020123183552.036d9e30@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:37:15 -0500
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Status codes for Information-Request
In-Reply-To: <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNGEJGDJAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020123113115.037238a0@funnel.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

Barr,

I don't disagree with your choice of names - I was simply re-using existing 
status codes from draft -23...

- Ralph

At 03:13 PM 1/23/2002 -0800, Richard Barr Hibbs wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ralph Droms
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 08:33
> >
> > Open issue from WG last call:
> >
> > * What status codes may a server send in response to an
> >    Information-Request message?
> >
> > I propose: Success, UnspecFail, AuthFailed, PoorlyFormed, OptionUnavail
> >
>...why be "cheap" with names?  I'd prefer they be spelled out: Success,
>UnpecifiedFailure, AuthorizationFailed, PoorlyFormed, OptionUnavailable, and
>DUIDneeded.
>
>--Barr
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg