I also think we are not actually solving the real original issues of:
a) how does a server fronting other servers/services advertise support for extensions
b) how does that server treat non-critical controls as they are applied over the distributed servers/services
>>> Jim Sermersheim 4/1/05 9:23:30 AM >>>
>>> Jim Sermersheim 4/1/05 9:09:34 AM >>>
>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 3/31/05 10:43:16 PM >>>
>I think s/appropriate/appropriate in the server's determination/
>would be appropriately vague.
If the WG is fine with the added behavioral differences (at the benefit of added service) this brings, then fine. We can update with this, and even add that the operation + any controls is not to be applied in a partial manner.
It's still confusing to implementors and clients. Does "appropriate for the operation in the server's determination" extend to include "and the server is willing to perform it"? Meaning, if the server can (at some early or pre stage) determine that the user has insufficient rights to perform the operation + non-critical control, can it ignore the control? "Appropriate for the operation" (whether determined by the server or not), still seems to me to indicate that the control specification named that operation as one valid for the control to be attached.
I'm not sure the reader is left with an any more clear understanding of how to implement or what to expect. If we want the behavior to be what you and Howard are suggesting, then I think replacing the word "appropriate" altogether is better. It should say "If the server is able and willing to support...".
That's what you're really saying isn't it?