> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 11:21:44 MDT
> From: "Harry Lewis <harryl@VNET.IBM.COM>" <harryl@VNET.IBM.COM>
> To: pwg@pwg.org
> Subject: noSuchName vs readOnly
>
> 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.
>
>
>
-- Michael Kirkham InterWorking Labs, Inc. 218 Carbonera Drive, Suite 102 Santa Cruz, CA 95060-1500 Tel: +1 408 459 9817 Fax: +1 408 459 9768 Email: mikek@iwl.com WWW: www.iwl.com