On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> commit c23fc51c268fefc460b224a12b63cd9a9672b538 > >>> Author: Ben Kaduk <[email protected]> > >>> Date: Wed Oct 24 23:21:29 2012 -0400 > >>> > >>> Describe the GSSNegotiate errorcode field [...] > This field is explicitly *not* a GSS error code, [...] > So, the GSS error codes would all be in gss_major_status and > gss_minor_status[...] Right, sorry, I forgot those existed when I was looking at this diff. > I am not strongly tied to this text, or even to having the errorcode > field be defined to hold application-specific values. If someone > wants to advocate having a registry for these values established in > this document, we can talk about that, but policy does feel > application-specific to me. I'm fine with the text you have, and with this being application-specific. However, I believe that means that the application protocol must define some meaning for this field, so that means the rxgk-afs draft must say something about this. I think rxgk-afs should specify that the values for AFS are maintained in a registry. That is a matter for rxgk-afs, not for this, but I just mention that because it needs to not get lost. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
