Re: Heirarchical error codes

[Doug Royer <Doug.Royer@xxxxxxx>]

> From: "Frank Dawson" <fdawson@earthlink.net>
> To: "John Stracke" <francis@ecal.com>, "calsch WG" <ietf-calendar@imc.org>
> Subject: Re: Heirarchical error codes
> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:24:17 -0500
> List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-calendar-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
> 
> On  Tuesday, March 16, 1999 4:51 PM John Stracke wrote, in part:
> 
> 
> >Doug and Frank
> >responded that that wouldn't happen, because all error codes have to be
> >registered; there aren't any X- errors.  The point, however, is that
> >registration doesn't help when you're talking to an old client that
> >doesn't know the new error codes.
> 
> So, you think that we should support "older" CUAs connecting to "newer" CSs?
> Isn't this fraught with problems?
> 
> At the time you connect, a CUA will get the CAP version number of the CS,
> right? So, the CAP CUA will begin by knowing that it is talking to an "up
> version" CS. Won't this key the CUA that it may get different REQUEST-STATUS
> codes?

I think this is a flaw with IMAP and we should not do this.
The only way that most customers would find this is when all of a
sudden - their CUA stopped working?

-Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug.Royer@Sun.COM		http://playground.sun.com/~dougr
801 W. El Camino #131		Work:   (650)786-7599
Mountain View, CA 94040		Ham Radio: N6AAW, Aviation: PP-ASEL