- 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>
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 UTC