Yes, we'll assume bib-1 diagnostics.

We'll cross the zig non-approval bridge when it catches fire.  Until then,
assume that they want us to succeed.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 12:46 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: diagnostics
>
>
> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
>
> > Why won't they just be z39.50 diagnostics?  We've got no
> interoperability
> > otherwise.  If we need to add new ones to z39.50, then
> that's fine.  But
> > let's not just start over with a new set.
>
> Two reasons:
>
> 1.We're not planning to accompany an srw diagnostic with an
> oid, are we? So
> would SRW simply assume bib-1?  Is that a good idea?
>
> 2. Supposed we need a new diagnostic that doesn't make sense
> for Z39.50 (e.g.
> invalid session id, session id expired, result set ttl
> expired, etc).  We
> normally seek ZIG approval before adding a diagnostic to
> bib-1. Ususally
> there's no objection, or even discussion. On occasion though
> a diagnostic has
> been rejected. But at least, the diagnostics proposed usually
> make sense.
> What's the ZIG going to say when we propose one that doesn't?
>
> --Ray
>