[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol - controls
Jim Sermersheim wrote:
I believe the broad interpretation of "appropriate" leads to far more
interoperability problems than the narrow view.
I'm glad to see that you don't believe a control can be partially applied.
The fact is, every implementation is going to behave quite differently
when it is allowed to either fail-over to ignoring a control or return
an error which was caused by the application of that control.
It will be extremely difficult to evaluate all error paths in code to
determine whether the error could be allieviated by ignoring any
non-critical controls that might be present. If one cooses not to do
that, one could instead, upon encountering any error condition, ignore
one non-critical control. If the operation still fails, one could ignore
another non-critical error (and probably should un-ignore that first
one). One could keep doing this until one has ignored enough
non-critical controls (rolling back the transaction each time),
until one determines that the operation is just going to fail no matter
what, or until the the operation succeeds (one hopes one hasn't
accidentally ignored a few non-critical controls that really wouldn't
have caused the error)
I am not suggesting that servers do any back-tracking to mitigate the
failures encountered while processing a request accompanied by
non-critical controls. Only stating that the presence of a non-critical
control should not cause a server to choose not to *begin* executing the
accompanying request. Once the server has decided to begin executing the
request, any incidental errors should of course be reported back to the
client as usual.
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc
Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support