RE: RFC 2251 considered harmful

[Steven Judd <stevenju@microsoft.com>]

IMO, a client should be able to use extensions if present and have a
fall-back strategy if referred to a server that does not support those
extensions.   If a client will not function without the cooperation of the
server (e.g. a "Critical Extension"),  then the client should fail
gracefully if referred to a server that cannot provide the necessary
extension.

steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Robert Allen [SMTP:rja@smmpk17.Eng.Sun.COM]
> Sent:	Friday, February 27, 1998 12:29 PM
> To:	ed.oskiewicz@bt-sys.bt.co.uk; S.Kille@isode.com
> Cc:	m.wahl@critical-angle.com; howes@netscape.com;
> ietf-ldapext@netscape.com; ietf-asid@netscape.com
> Subject:	Re: RFC 2251 considered harmful
> 
> 
> >>This is an interesting point.
> 
> So, um, what exactly is the solution to using referrals in a
> protocol that allows servers in the chain to not support
> critical extensions?
> 
> It seems that the safest thing for a client to do is use
> LDAP v2. :-(.
> 
> Robert Allen
> rja@sun.com