[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: appropriateness of combination of controls (new suggestion)
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
> I offer the following for WG consideration:
> When a client is faced with a sequence of controls which
> are not appropriate for the operation, the client may
> attempt, by ignoring any number of controls, in order
> to make use of the response in its processing. Alternatively,
> the client may treat the response as not well structured.
I've been thinking more about inappropriate response controls, and I
think even that text is too limiting. Maybe we should say nothing about
them at all. rfc2251 has no such concept, it only has inappropriate
The client should be free to ignore any response control, whether or not
it is appropriate. It should certainly be free to ignore unsolicited
response controls, and presumably it knows what it wants to do about
solicited response controls.
We could RECOMMEND to not act on ambiguous, unspecified response control
combinations, and to instead ignore one or more of the controls.
If we keep 'inappropriate for the operation', I think that should be
'inappropriate for the response', since an operation can get several
responses. Also, remember to distinguish between different intermediate
responses as well as different extended responses. BTW, in this context
it does make a difference whether the 'kind' of IntermediateResponse is
determined only by the responseName or also by information in the
responseValue, as previously discussed about IntermediateResponse.