[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: ;binary and *

To: michael@stroeder.com
Subject: Re: ;binary and *
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 07:20:52 -0800
Cc: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk>, ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <3C8369AE.9080002@stroeder.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225100000.01708688@127.0.0.1> <3C815211.A9AE3405@salford.ac.uk>

At 04:33 AM 2002-03-04, Michael Ströder wrote:
>David Chadwick wrote:
>>
>>>OR not return the attribute.
>>Absolutely not. The user has asked for ALL attributes. Unless access
>>controls prevent it, all should be returned, even if the user cant
>>handle them.
>>For example, pictures should be returned, even though today
>>some well known windows clients cant display them (whilst others can).
>
>I concur.
>
>>This is no different to sending others back using ;binary encoding. The
>>server does not know what the client supports, so should assume it can
>>support everything since it has not limited what it wants.
>
>Yes.

Then clients MUST treat any attribute description which contains
an unrecognized option as unrecognized.  Clients cannot simply
treat attributes with unrecognized options as an (indirect)
subtype of the attribute description with the same attribute
type and no options.

It is a really bad idea for servers to assume clients support
anything which is not REQUIRED.

Kurt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ;binary and *
  - From: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>

References:
- Re: ;binary and *
  - From: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk>
- Re: ;binary and *
  - From: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>

Prev by Date: Re: ;binary and *
Next by Date: Re: ;binary and *
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread