John C Klensin wrote:
--On Saturday, 10 March, 2007 11:05 +0000 Alexey Melnikov
<alexey(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com> wrote:
Use of 5.7.8 in draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis-08.txt is a new
feature since RFC 2554. However, draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis
was around for long time and there might be more
implementations of its 5.7.8 than that from the RFC 4468.
There are certainly fewer RFC 4468 implementations deployed at
the moment.
So, in order to decide whether draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis
needs to be changed or whether rfc4468bis needs to be
published, I would like to solicit comments from implementors
of both extensions.
Alexey,
If you find any non-trivial and/or deployed implementations of
each one, i.e., both interpretations are in use, please consider
deprecating the code, noting the ambiguity in the registry, and
allocating two new ones.
Good point.
It is impossible to say "that use is
wrong and systems using it should switch" and know whether they
request has been carried out or not.
Tony was quicker replying to this: there is no IANA registry for
Enhanced Status Codes.
Should there be one?
Numbers are cheap, confusion can be expensive.
Indeed.