To get a sense of consensus, you need to read the entire thread rather than just those two messages.
>>> "Ramsay, Ron" <Ron.Ramsay@ca.com> 5/19/05 7:25:16 PM >>>
Hmmm... I looked at these two messages. They both say that servers may have a tough time deciding whether they support the control "in the context", but neither conclude that the server can choose not to honour a control they recognise. Or is this all you mean? Your original statemet seemed to be much broader. Also, I didn't see "consensus".
Could you please indicate the message the indicates consensus?
Ron
See the thread starting here <http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200503/msg00078.html> and ending (around) here <http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200504/msg00018.html>.
>>> "Ramsay, Ron" <Ron.Ramsay@ca.com> 5/19/05 6:52:29 PM >>>
Way-hay-hay. I didn't see any consensus for ignoring non-critical controls. I'm certainly not in favour of it.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
[mailto:owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Friday, 20 May 2005 00:06
To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: Protocol: control combinations
Recent Working Group consensus has changed the semantics of control criticality such that a server may ignore non-critical controls at its discretion.
This change affects the way we have described control combinations. The current language is this:
"Controls SHOULD NOT be combined unless the semantics of the combination has been specified. The semantics of control combinations, if specified, are generally found in the control specification most recently published. When a combination of controls is encountered whose semantics are invalid, not specified (or not known), the message is considered to be not well-formed, thus the operation fails with protocolError. Additionally, unless order-dependent semantics are given in a specification, the order of a combination of controls in the SEQUENCE is ignored. Where the order is to be ignored but cannot be ignored by the server, the message is considered not well-formed and the operation fails with protocolError."
If a server is allowed to ignore non-critical controls, it should be allowed to ignore non-critical controls in invalid control combinations. If no one disagrees, I will take a stab at fixing this paragraph.
Jim
|