I also like the first version of the text. ~Tim
On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 1:39 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
