W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: BIND method response codes, new header?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:57:21 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEMHFIAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Geoff,

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:47 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: BIND method response codes, new header?
>
>
> I'm still looking for a compelling reason to do anything
> about this at all.  So far, the only argument is for
> "consistency".  Since these are different methods with
> different semantics, I find "consistency" arguments less
> compelling than simplicity arguments (i.e. it simpler to
> just always return 200 if there are no errors).
> So what is the compelling use case for a client knowing
> whether the new binding is replacing an old binding or not?
> Cheers,
> Geoff

as you said, it's a tradeoff between consistency and simplicity. Making BIND
simpler may make implementations and clients actually more complicated,
because they will have to use different code for similar purposes.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 11:57:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT