[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Fwd: Re: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol - controls
Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 4/1/05 11:06:03 AM >>>
>At 08:25 AM 4/1/2005, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>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
>The same as it would in single server system... in
>a manner consistent with the client's expectations.
>Or more to the point, the client's expectations are the
>same regardless of whether the service is distributed or
>not. Why do you think the server is free to ignore
>some or all of those expectations simply because it
>fronting a distributed service?
I don't. What I'm saying is there was a message from Howard which seemed
to me to raise these two issues (a and b). Relaxing what "appropriate"
means doesn't address either of these issues. Maybe I'm wrong and the
only issue raised was that we want "appropriate for the operation" to
mean more than specified as appropriate for the operation by the control
spec. No response is needed though, I'm too tired of this issue to argue
anymore, no one else is concerned. I'll make the change.
Yes, I raised at least (a) but only to provide background for the
current problem. I think it might be nice if we had a mechanism for
advertising support that worked for this case, but I'm not looking to
design it today, here in LDAPbis. Sorry if that muddied the water too much.
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support