[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: appropriateness of combination of controls (new suggestion)
At 06:03 AM 5/12/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>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.
Exactly, re-read the suggested text. It allows any number
(including zero) of response controls to be ignored and,
unlike the text for the server, there is no requirement the
resulting sequence to be "appropriate for the operation".
>It should certainly be free to ignore unsolicited
>response controls, and presumably it knows what it wants to do about
>solicited response controls.
The text applies equally well to unsolicited notifications (as
they are messages belonging to an operation form).
>We could RECOMMEND to not act on ambiguous, unspecified response control
>combinations, and to instead ignore one or more of the controls.
Act in regards to the protocol? or act outside the protocol?
>If we keep 'inappropriate for the operation', I think that should be
>'inappropriate for the response', since an operation can get several
A response is part of the operation. The control alters the
extends the response in a manner appropriate for the operation.
>Also, remember to distinguish between different intermediate
>responses as well as different extended responses.
Why? Aren't they all part of some kind of operation?
(Again, I think of unsolicited notifications as being part
of an operation, in particular a request-less operation.)