Re: [netmod] error-message

JOEY BOYD <> Mon, 25 March 2019 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B531203EF for <>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hAltZCKB45qN for <>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA5211203A2 for <>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (Using TLS) by with ESMTP id us-mta-203-7lT8STrHM26tYxJS4gREbw-1; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:55:09 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::51a3:972d:5f16:9952]) by ([fe80::a43f:7ea6:7688:37b%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:55:08 -0500
From: JOEY BOYD <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: error-message
Thread-Index: AdTSn2llQGSojFl0QmmWuHXdWeKWOQQevguQ
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:55:08 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MC-Unique: 7lT8STrHM26tYxJS4gREbw-1
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_26CE489EF4611643B3EFE43D06E02654018CCF76FAexmb1corpadtr_"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] error-message
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:55:16 -0000


I wanted to follow up on this as I have not received any feedback. I thinking now that even though it is isn't specifically called out in the update section, that adding an error-message could be backward compatible as it has no impact on the data or modeled constraint. It merely defines the error response which was previously up to the implementation to determine.

Any thoughts on this?


Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 9:37 AM
To: '' <>
Subject: error-message


Is the addition of an 'error-message' to an existing 'must' statement considered backward compatible? I don't see 'error-message' mentioned in the "Updating a Module" section which leads me to believe that it isn't but wanted to double check to see what implications adding one to an existing module would have.

Thanks and regards,