Re: Protocol: control criticality for non-response messages

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Jim Sermersheim writes:
> Ok, after re-reading your example, I can see your point on allowing a
> criticality of TRUE on abandon.
>  
> But for unbind, I think we'd have to alter a significant amount of text
> in order to allow it, and I'm not sure allowing it is beneficial. Note
> that the document tells clients to drop the connection once they send an
> unbind. It's not contingent on whether a critical control was or was not
> supported on the server.
>  
> I'd like to propose allowing abandonRequest to have a TRUE criticality,
> but leaving unbindRequest as is.

That leaves the question of what the server should do if it receives an
unbindRequest with a control with TRUE criticality.  I suggest behaviour
should either be undefined (in which case you can drop the 'criticality
field SHOULD be FALSE' text), or that the criticality field is ignored.

-- 
Hallvard