RE: [security-services] A "final" proposal on status codes

[Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> The changes made were to make all types into named types, to 
> move certain data types into attributes and to make the 
> element names unambiguous at the top level (hence adding 
> Status to everything).
> 
> It does not matter much what the coding stye is, but making 
> it consistent across the spec makes a big difference.

I actually prefer the attribute-based version to the element approach
(maybe Rich can comment on why they went with elements, I don't know
myself), but I do think the array vs. tree issue needs to be
specifically raised.

If we go with a sequence of codes, we need to document the semantics.
With nesting, it's pretty clear that you have a general->specific
connotation.

-- Scott