On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:09:29 -0700, Vladimir A. Butenko wrote: > Do you suggest that there should be NO strict and explicit definition for > the cases when BAD should be returned instead of NO?
My opinion (subject to change with a convincing argument): It is desirable to distinguish between BAD and NO cases. BAD means "protocol violation". To a great extent, a command which both the client and server known can not possibly work *is* a protocol violation. On the other hand, I am not particularly interested in fixing a grey area of the BAD vs NO choice if there are no obvious client consequences. Put another way, issues which cause interoperability problems need to be fixed; purely academic issues don't necessarily need to be fixed. > Or - that the NO > responses should be issued in this and that particular cases, BAD - in this > and that, and all other error situations may result in BAD or NO, depending > on the implementation. This is more or less what is intended, with the vast majority of cases being clearly NO or BAD and only a small minority being "either".
