Section 14 (Appendix B) of the "Model and Semantics" document includes the =
> "The name of the enum is the suggested status message for US English"
> The name of the enum for unqualified success (0x0000) is 'successful-ok'. =
> Shouldn't its corresponding status message be "successful-ok"? If so, =
> there is another discrepancy in Appendix A of the "Encoding and Transport" =
> document where "OK" is used as the status-message for 'successful-ok'.
> -Hugo Parra
Also, isn't "successful-ok" redundant? We could save a few bytes and shorten that to "successful" without losing any information. Similarly with "successful-ok-ignored-or-substituted-attributes" and "successful-ok-conflicting-attributes".