[BXXPwg] proposal for 1:N interactions
Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:10:51 -0700
At 15:15 -0700 2000.08.31, Marshall Rose wrote:
> > >if i get back an ERR, i'm thinking that nothing happened whatsoever.
>> So, what do you get if things are happening and you're getting back
>> positive stuff, but then something goes wrong before everything is
>> done happening?
>you've already done useful work, so sending an ERR isn't appropriate.
I get it now. Exceptions are not cause for ERR messages-- only
errors are cause for ERR messages. (At least, that's how *I* have to
think about it to keep myself honest.)
Sending an ERR isn't appropriate because the earlier ANS message
implies there is no protocol error. There is symmetry after all,
since ERR always indicates a protocol error, and exceptions are
always indicated with variants of RPY and ANS messages, depending on
whether the interaction is 1:1 or 1:N.
Perhaps it would be helpful to make this point clear in the
appropriate draft? It would be a real shame if protocol developers
missed this point and abused the ERR message by using it to report
exception conditions rather than protocol errors.
j h woodyatt <email@example.com>