Re: control combination was: Re: protocol-22 comments)

["Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com>]

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 5/9/04 7:12:32 PM >>>

>Does it matter how it's defined?  It seems to me that all that
>matters is that it is defined. 

I think I'm missing something fundamental here. The semantics of LAP
operations are defined in documents like Internet-Drafts, RFCS, and ITU
recommendations. Up until now, I think people consider semantics not
documented in this way as undefined (even if two implementations
bilaterally agree upon semantics out of band).

For purposes of interoperability, we talk about operation semantics in
terms of definitions found in the above documents. If we are not worried
about operation semantics defined outside the scope of these documents,
then for this type of operation, it seems we're not worried about
interoperability. 

If we're not worried about this kind of interoperability (which is a
valid option), I prefer to use language like "behavior is undefined".
This language has been used in the past and I think is understood by the
reader. Using the term "defined" to allow less than documented in the
above documents I think invites surprises.

Let me know where I'm getting derailed.

Jim