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

Re: No-op LDAP ;binary option

At 07:13 AM 2002-11-23, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>> Now, what some have said is, if the server recognizes an
>> odd spelling of tomatoes, it can serve the dish with that
>> old spelling.  There are odd clients which expect this.
>> Unfornately, we have also have odd clients which actually
>> expect to be able to be able to ask for the dish using an
>> odd spelling but get back the correct spelling.  So, what's
>> the server to do?
>
>Sounds like a case for leaving it to the administrator.
>That is, servers MAY do either but SHOULD do whatever causes
>least problems.  And an implementation note that the MAY
>should not be default, just an option.

I am quite leery of saying things about behaviors which
are counter to existing MUSTs.  We need to clarify that
the MUST is an absolute requirement.

Describing behaviors which are counter to non-absolute
requirements not only weaken the requirement but weaken
implementations ability to be friendly to non-conformant
implementations.

In the old saying "be liberal in what you accept, be
strict in what you send" (paraphrased), the specification
needs to be clear on how to be "strict" and vague on how
to be "liberal".

Kurt