[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-url-05.txt
At 03:05 PM 2/16/2004, Mark Smith wrote:
>>>If an LDAP URL extension is recognised by an implementation, the
>>>implementation MUST make use of it.
>>What if you recognise it, but don't implement it?
>>If it is not critical then I see no reason why the operation should not
>Kurt can probably explain this better than I can... but the goal is to be consistent the philopsophy used for LDAP controls in the Protocol document.
>I think "recognized" implies "ability to use" an extension; that is, if an implementation recognizes an extension it is able to use it.
I prefer "implement" here over "recognize". Like a number of
other protocol tokens, it is possible to "recognize" an
token without actually implementing the syntax and semantics
associated with that token. For instance, a implementation
could recognize the bindname extension but not implement it
(maybe the implementation only supports the mandatory-to-implement
authentication mechanism (e.g., DIGEST-MD5)).
>Why are they called extensions and not controls? It looks a bit misleading to me. (LDAP can be extended in a number of ways.)
I think it would be misleading to call them LDAP URL Controls
as they would confused with LDAP Controls. LDAP URL Extensions
are not necessarily LDAP Controls.