Re: Heirarchical error codes

[David Madeo <dmadeo@xxxxxx>]

Steve Mansour wrote:

> Rob Earhart wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Doug Royer wrote:
> > > In general I could agree. In CALSCH, the RFC's already define status
> > > codes RFC2445, 2445, and perhaps 2446.
> >   Just to outline my problems with them:
> >   ) They're unwieldy and difficult to read in a protocol trace.
>
> I don't know about unwieldy, but it can certainly be hard to remember the
> meaning of an error given its number.

Initially this was a concern of mine as well.  We routinely sniff packets to
debug problems with applications.  It's easy enough though to write a perl
wrapper to translate this for the admin based on the particular sniffing tool
you use.  The hardware packet sniffers will probably build it in once it's an
RFC, etc.

As an aside, the ideal CS implementation would provide some way for admins to
see this without snooping, but that shouldn't be a concern here.

dmadeo


begin:vcard 
n:Madeo;David
tel;fax:212-762-1009
tel;work:212-762-2348
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.ms.com
org:Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and Discover;Information Technology
version:2.1
email;internet:dmadeo@ms.com
adr;quoted-printable:;;750 Seventh Ave=0D=0A;NY;NY;10019;USA
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:David Madeo
end:vcard