[OASIS Issue Tracker] (MQTT-436) Feedback from Ken Borgendale on WD14

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/MQTT-436?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=66309#comment-66309 ] 

Andrew Banks commented on MQTT-436:
-----------------------------------

As MQTT control packets are sent asynchrounously the term "Return Code" is technically incorrect for all packets, not just the DISCONNECT.  This is the more traditional term and was the term used in V3.1.1 and was just expanded in v5.   I would prefer to change the term globally to Reason Code than to leave some of them as Return Codes and change some as Reason Codes.  Many of the possible codes on CONNACK would be better defined as Reason Codes than Return Codes.

> Feedback from Ken Borgendale on WD14
> ------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MQTT-436
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/MQTT-436
>             Project: OASIS Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 5, wd13
>            Reporter: Andrew Banks
>
> During my review I found a few formatting errors such as missing blank lines and a couple of spelling errors which I fixed.  These mostly predated wd14.  I also made a change to appendix C to add reason code into a statement about return codes.  
> We should take another pass some time to decide if the various uses of client and server (lower case) are acceptable.
> There is another example of the reason code thing in section 2.2.2.2 but I will leave that to you to word correctly.
> [
> At line 2202 (Topic Alias) you changed the "whose values exceeds" to "exceeding", but the same phrase occurs in the next paragraph which you did not change.  There was some confusion from Solace that the range was 1 to max (inclusive).  They thought you could have max number regardless of the value.  The previous wording seems less ambiguous in this case.  Whatever we use should be the same in the two paragraphs.
> I see that you changed the pharse "Session State in the Client" to Client's Session State".  I think the original is somewhat less ambiguous,



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)