I don't see that ZIG approval or not is important. In a fault code you
have to qualify the fault value. If we say 'we want a diagnostic saying
that the Z session timed out so we lost your result set' and they say
'Huh??' then we can add a fault code SRW:LostZSession
Equally we could say bib1:6 rather than z39.50:6 to make the code
explicitly from the BIB1 diagnostics.
> 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.
> > 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
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I