Re: Partially suppported supportedControl/supportedExtension

[Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>]

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> I would argue that advertisement implies the server
> recognizes and understands the control (that is,
> it is 'supported') BUT that the advertisement
> doesn't necessarily imply that any particular
> operation extended by the control is serviceable.

Gee...yet another

oh-yes-it-is-announced-by-the-server-but-the-client-cannot-rely-on-it

feature.

This reminds me of quite a few other this-is-optional-features discussed 
here such as unsupported schema elements which are present in sub schema.

> Anyways, I think [Protocol, 4.1.12] is fine here.
> However, the description of unavailableCriticalExtension
> in [Protocol, A.2] needs a bit of work as "unable or
> unwilling to perform" implies a service error.
> Instead,
>    unavailableCriticalExtensions
> 	Indicates a critical control is unrecognized
> 	(see Section 4.1.12).

Kurt, this issue is not just a matter of language in the standard. It's a 
LDAPv3 design flaw. Such issues should be fixed instead of defined away with 
an even more general error code.

So I suggest to add the following note for RootDSE attributes supported*:

  The attribute values herein are completely useless. You have to
  implement a proprietary local client configuration for defining
  whether such a feature is available or not.

Still expect things to be even more weird...

Ciao, Michael.