|
Thanks for the opportunity, Jim, but I don't
have a strong opinion. The previous (consensus) view of the WG was that
criticality was unimportant once the decision was taken to perform a
request and it came as a shock to see the converse written down. I've recovered
now, though.
I'm not sure of the connection between the
number of posters and consensus. I didn't post because my views had already been
put, probably by you. Generally, I'm not in favour of "me, too" posts. Another
problem might be that there seem to be only five posters in this WG in total.
But this topic has always been a difficult one, made more so by distribution and
the situation that started the thread. Something about sleeping dogs
...
Ron
What I should have said is that after reading the entire thread (which
far from being arcane went on for over a month and was rather hotly
debated), you will see that there was only one person (me) who felt that the
change was against the intent of RFC 2251. In the end I grumpily yielded ( http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200504/msg00020.html).
On that thread, I represented 20% of the opinions. I also assume that anyone
in the Working Group not bothering to speak up is generally siding with the
majority. I figure when 80+% of the people agree with something,
it constitutes consensus (whether I like it or not).
That said, if you have arguments which you didn't get to voice before,
now would be a good time.
>>> "Ramsay, Ron"
<Ron.Ramsay@ca.com> 5/19/05 10:37:52 PM >>>
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
|