Subject: Re: Final changes to the base SASL document

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:29:40 -0400

>>>>> "Alexey" == Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]> writes:

    Alexey> Rob Siemborski wrote:

    >> On Fri, 21 May 2004, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >>> >> It seems we can handle this cleanly enough if we treat it
    >>> just >> like the initial response.
    >>> 
    >>> But is it worth the complexity?  IT seems that if we can avoid
    >>> the introduction of distinguishing the two cases we should do
    >>> so.
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>  If it is not worth the complexity (and, really, I can't think
    >> of any situation where an empty server success data would be
    >> *useful*-- it just seems that we'd be giving up some level of
    >> flexibility), then we should just forbid empty success data --
    >> this would lead to the less confusion than attributing two
    >> potential meanings to "no success data".
    >> 
    >> 
    Alexey> Should I treat "forbid empty success data" as the WG
    Alexey> consensus on empty versa no data on success?

I think so.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:29:40 -0400

I think so.