On 21.04.22 17:34, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On 21 April 2022 16:35:25 CEST, "Gould, James"
<[email protected]> wrote:
+1 on the use 2103/"Unimplemented extension". This is a broader topic with the
passing invalid or conflicting extensions (e.g., restore request extension of update
along with the sync extension).
2103 would suggest that the extension is not implemented at all IMHO.
I'd return 2002 "Command use error"
to indicate that there is a sequence error, but in the end it's probably more
or less cosmetics.
HTH,
Hi,
if not 2103 as we did, I would rather choose 2102/"Unimplemented
option", 2004/"Parameter value range error" or 2005/"Parameter value
syntax error" than 2002.
But since it is related to extensions, 2103 is IMHO a good choice in
respect to the principle of the least astonishment on the receiver side.
One could interpret the message as "not implemented for THIS command".
Regards,
Klaus
--
___________________________________________________________________________
| |
| knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
------- Technologiepark
Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
44227 Dortmund
Geschäftsführer: Registereintrag:
Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
