Re: controls

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 01:52 PM 2002-10-01, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>The wording in my latest (yet-to-be-submitted) draft says this:
>
>"Controls should not be combined unless the semantics of the
>combination has been specified. The semantics of control combinations,
>if specified, are generally found in the control definition most
>recently published. In the absence of such a definition, the behavior of
>the operation is undefined.  

s/definition/specification/

>Additionally, the order of a combination of controls in the SEQUENCE is
>ignored unless the control definition explicitly states that ordering
>affects the operation."
>
>In other words, we can't say that it matters unless we can say how it
>matters. Therefore, we acknowledge that it may matter, but leave it up
>to the control definitions to specify if and how it matters.

I think we need to say how servers are to behave where they
are given a combination of recognized and appropriate controls
types for an operation but they do not support the particular
combination.  I suggest that if the server is unwilling or unable
to perform the operation as extended by the combination, it
should return unwillingToPerform.

Kurt