[Nmc-wg] Result Code Redux - One last issue

[Jason Zurawski]

Hi Roman;

I think this is a good idea, would you be able to make the changes to 
the document and sent it back to the list?

Thanks;

-jason

On 9/23/11 12:29 PM, thus spake Roman Łapacz:
> W dniu 2011-09-23 11:32, Jason Zurawski pisze:
>> Gang;
>
> Hi,
>
>>
>> In typing up the final version of the status codes into the document,
>> I hit upon a snag.  Here is an example of what was proposed in the
>> prior mail:
>>
>> http://schemas.ogf.org/nmc/2011/09/status/informational/protocol version/
>>
>> This goes against our typical method of constructing namespaces.  I
>> would suggest we do this instead:
>>
>> http://schemas.ogf.org/nmc/status/informational/protocol version/2011/09/
>>
>> Or even better using:
>>
>>   201109
>>
>> or
>>
>>   20110923
>
> Right. Good you spotted this. I prefer to have just one field for
> version number (201109 or 20110923)  with an exception for early testing
> versions (201109/beta or 20110923/beta).
>
>>
>> As the 'version' string.  I am attaching an updated document going
>> with the first suggestion, I prefer the last best of all.  Other
>> opinions?
>
> What do you think to replace the code hierarchy with the pattern in the
> beginning of section 2. Example:
>
> --example---------------------
>
> "http://schemas.ogf.org/nmc/status/"<STATUS_CATEGORY>"/"<STATUS_NAME>"/"<VERSION>
>
> <STATUS_CATEGORY> may have the following text values:
>    - informational
>    - successful
>    - redirection
>    - clienterror
>    - servererror
>
> <STATUS_NAME> depends on the status category and may have the following
> text values:
>    - informational category
>      -- protocol version
>      -- data limitation
>      -- service_contact
>    - client error category
>      -- bad_message
>      -- bad request
>      -- authentication_failed
>      -- unauthorized
>      -- message not allowed
>      -- event_type_not_allowed
>      -- event_type_not_allowed
>      -- request_too_large
>      -- request_timeout
>      -- protocol_not_allowed
>      -- chaining_not_understood
>    - servererror category
>      -- data_fetch_error
>      -- too_busy
>      -- administrative_down
>    Two categories, successful and redirection,  do not need to have
> certain status names.
>
> VERSION is a string presenting information about the version of
> protocol, e.g. 201109 or 20110925. In case of early testing version an
> optional part after "/" may be added (e.g. 201109/beta or 20110925/beta) .
>
> -- end---------------------
>
> I'm thinking about such update because version numbers don't look good
> in the structure. They are not generic. The use of pattern solves this
> issue. What do you think? (of  course a short description below the
> pattern in my example may be done much better; I just wanted to present
> my idea).
>
> Cheers,
> Roman
>
>>
>> Thanks;
>>
>> -jason