Skip to content

Feedback on formalising the error codes #2209

@Agent-Hellboy

Description

@Agent-Hellboy

I have been reading the new SEP and seeing error code getting chosen out of nowhere, but shouldn't a protocol formalise this, even projects like postgres do this.

A workable formal classing scheme (within -32000..-32099)
Because we only have 100 slots, the most practical structure is two digits:

  • -32 C R → C = class (0–9), R = reason (0–9)
  • Example: -32042 → class 4, reason 2

Suggested class map (example):

  • 0x: General / common
  • 1x: Auth / access
  • 2x: Not found / missing
  • 3x: Validation / state
  • 4x: Interaction / elicitation
  • 5x: Rate limit / quota
  • 6x: Transport / upstream
  • 7x: Capability / negotiation
  • 8x: Data integrity / tamper
  • 9x: Reserved / experimental

it will also help people reason about the error and it's impact , although all error code has same client impact.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions