My point would be that to get consensus
requires more than a number of people on an (arcane) thread reaching
agreement.
However. Kurt has also said that he sought
consensus on this matter.
Ron
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
|