RE: [dhcwg] Status codes for Information-Request

Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net> Wed, 23 January 2002 23:29 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 SAA29187 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:29:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA22853 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:29:35 -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 SAA22619; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:14:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA22596 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:14:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29006 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:14:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from BarrH63p601 ([64.170.119.193]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GQE004BMZ8D1S@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:14:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:13:42 -0800
From: Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Status codes for Information-Request
In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20020123113115.037238a0@funnel.cisco.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Reply-to: rbhibbs@pacbell.net
Message-id: <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNGEJGDJAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

> -----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