Re: Protocol: control specifications.

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

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:

> I do not see particular useful to detail how the server is to
> behave when a client violates a particular absolute requirement
> (or prohibition) of the controls (or other) specification.
> Certainly, a violation of an absolute requirement/prohibition
> is a protocol violation.  Whether or not server chooses to
> return protocolViolation or just ignore it (be liberal in what
> you accept) or do something else can be left an implementation
> detail.

After thinking a bit more about this, I believe [Protocol] should
require protocolViolation if the required criticality of a supported
control is violated.  That will teach programmers who use a server
which does support the control, to write programs which will work
right when moving to a server which does not support the control.

For example, the No-Op control, which prevents the effects of update
operations, has criticality TRUE.  It would be rather unfortunate to
run a program which uses it with criticality FALSE against a server
which does not support the control.

-- 
Hallvard