RE: WG Last Call: draft-just-ldapv3-rescodes-02.txt

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 01:46 PM 6/15/00 -0400, Mike Just wrote:
>The draft adds/changes portions of 2251 that are relevant to result codes.

So, it updates RFC 2251.

>I believe that Mark had indicated at the last IETF meeting that this draft
>(along with other suggested updates) would be included in the eventual
>update to 2251. At that point, it specifications would be requirement for
>conformance with 2251.

If it add/changes (updates) 2251, it's applies as soon as it's approved
as a Proposed Standard. 

>I indicated at the last meeting that this document should be on the
>standards track since it does add to, as well as amend 2251. Whereas if it
>just gathered and combined information from 2251 and X.511, informational
>status might be more appropriate. As an example, the description of
>operationsError differs somewhat from 2251 since 2251 indicates that this
>error code may be returned from a Bind operation attempt. On the other hand,
>we specify that operationsError is applicable to all operations except Bind.
>
>Once this draft reaches RFC status, implementers can choose to conform to it
>(assuming that they do not already).  

It makes zero sense to have two specifications for error handling.
Either RFC 2251 is the definitive or this document, once approved,
is.

>Would a paragraph summarizing these points above better indicate the
>applicability of the document for you?

Yes.