PWG Mail Archive: noSuchName vs readOnly

noSuchName vs readOnly

Harry Lewis (harryl@vnet.ibm.com)
Fri, 20 Sep 96 11:21:44 MDT

I recall that we resolved that the response for an attempt to do a SET on a
R/O attribute should (by definition in the corrected architecture) noSuchName
yet some of us had implemented readOnly as the error, based on original
IETF specifications.

I want to align with the current standard, but not at the expense of
interoperation, especially since the change in the standard did not seem too
crisp and does not appear to make sense.

Is it proper to poll and ask which one printers are doing today and which way
they are migrating? I wish this had come out during interop testing. Did it,
to anyone's knowledge.