Updating control specifications to add combination semantics

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

This has been brought up among the discussions of control combinations.

Many (most) existing control specifications don't discuss very well which other controls they may be combined with. One suggestion has been that a third specification could be drafted which defines the semantics of the combination of two existing controls (call them A and B).

I don't like this idea unless the new specification defines new OIDs for the controlTypes of A and B (or defines a third control for the purposes of soliciting the combination of A and B). Otherwise, an implementation supporting A and B created prior to the third specification will behave one way while another implementation (created after the third specification) will behave another way. Both implementations will advertise support for the A and B, yet behave differently.

This discussion probably belongs on the ldapext list * not here, but it seemed important to this particular topic.

Jim