RE: Review of ordering draft, version 05

> > Actually, I agree that RFC2518 has a better error 
> marshalling mechanism
> 
> I assume that's a typo :-)

Yeah, oops, that was a typo :)


> Yes, and I think that's something that should be possibly 
> fixed in RFC3253.
> Failure to meet a postcondition (after all preconditions were 
> verified)
> always is a server bug and thus would belong into the 5xx 
> range. The main
> question is: which spec should fix that? I'd really like to 
> see RFC2518bis
> to pick up (and clarify) this kind of error typing (maybe in 
> a way that
> makes it optional?).

Seems reasonable to me, as long as it is optional. Other opinions?

Received on Saturday, 15 February 2003 13:09:23 UTC