[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: Dereferencing Match draft for the repository...

To: Ryan Moats <jayhawk@att.com>, dboreham@netscape.com
Subject: RE: Dereferencing Match draft for the repository...
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:08:52 +0200
Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com, gfm@qsun.ho.att.com, johns@cisco.com
In-reply-to: <001001bebbe2$a66b3780$e3c8090a@schooner.local.windrose.oma ha.ne.us>
References: <4.2.0.56.19990621003636.00c0d250@dokka.maxware.no>
Resent-date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 06:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"0hsc0D.A.WbG.fsjb3"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

At 07:36 21.06.99 -0500, Ryan Moats wrote:

I like the idea of adding a "how to respond if you don't
support this extension" section to the draft.  As far as
interoperability beyond this, I'm not sure I understand:
why isn't this a binary situation (the server supports
the extension or not).

There are 2 cases:
- The function is possible to perform, but abysmally slow(?) if this
  extension is not supported
- The function is not possible to perform if this extension is not
  supported
I think any extension draft should be very clear about which category
it fits into.

            Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Dereferencing Match draft for the repository...
  - From: Ryan Moats <jayhawk@att.com>

References:
- Re: Dereferencing Match draft for the repository...
  - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>

Prev by Date: RE: Dereferencing Match draft for the repository...
Next by Date: RE: Dereferencing Match draft for the repository...
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread