Like Bernie, I prefer the first version of the new text. -éric
From: Megan Ferguson <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 8 January 2026 at 01:10 To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Bernie Volz <[email protected]>, Tomek Mrugalski <[email protected]>, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, Editor RFC <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Suresh Krishnan (sureshk) <[email protected]>, Shawn Zandi via auth48archive <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9915 <draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-12> for your review Hi Tomek (and *Éric), Any further thoughts/suggestions or preference related to one of these options from Bernie? >>>>> 7. Can client send status code? >>>>> >>>>> The table in Section 21.13 lists UnspecFail status code with this text: >>>>> "...this status code is sent by either a client or a server to indicate >>>>> a failure...". In which cases client would be sending status code? I >>>>> don't remember ever seeing client sending a status code in the wild. Is >>>>> this to indicate some weird failure in reconfigure? Do we have a >>>>> normative text somewhere that would say "client sends status code if >>>>> ..."? I'm not sure what would be the point. What would the server be >>>>> supposed to do with such information? >>>>> >>>> bv> you are correct that a client cannot send a status code, at least in >>>> the messages covered by this document. Again 3315 and 8415 have this text. >>>> Though I am a bit unsure as to whether we should actually change this text. >>> [rfced] Please let us know how to proceed (perhaps *AD input could help?). >>> >>> AD> Let's avoid ambiguities and update the text to be clear that status >>> code is sent by the server only and should be ignored by the server upon >>> receiving any status code. Authors, can you propose OLD/NEW text ? Bernie’s suggestions that were favored by Michael: > > Bernie Volz <[email protected]> wrote: >> UnspecFail 1 Failure, reason unspecified; this status code >> is sent by a server to indicate a failure not explicitly specified in >> this document. > > I prefer this one. > (Not sure if my middle-of-the-night phone poking worked) > >> Or, we could use (as the two conditions where this is used in the text >> are clear indications that this is sent by server to client): > >> UnspecFail 1 Failure, reason unspecified; indicates a >> failure not explicitly specified in this document. > > This one also works for me. > > > Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production Center
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
