Re: Message Numbers and Disconnect Codes

[Henrick Hellström <henrick%streamsec.se@localhost>]

Niels Möller wrote:

> I disagree. The primary reason for reserving a space for locally
> defined names and numbers, is to make it possible to define your own
> experimental names and numbers without getting into conflict with
> future *standardized* features.

What makes that a valid reason? What concrete issues would it prevent?

If you have defined an experimental number that later got into conflict 
with new standardized features, what would prevent you from simply 
changing the experimental number, recompiling your software and 
redeploying it to your testers?

("THIS IS AN EXPERIMENTAL BUILD ALLOWED FOR CERTIFIED TESTING ONLY. 
COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER IMPLEMENTATIONS OR VERSIONS OF THE SOFTWARE IS 
NOT GUARANTEED.")


> If you feel strongly that reason codes or other numbers in the
> protocol need separate namespaces for local extensions, then the right
> way to do that is to replace the numbers with names, using the
> extension mechanism we use for all other names. But it's too late for
> that, imo, so I'll try to stay away from arguing about such a change
> in detail.

I mostly agree. There are however other solutions, but I guess there 
isn't much to discuss if we can't even agree on a purpose for the 
locally assigned numbers. ;)


--
Henrick Hellström
www.streamsec.com